Case 3:22-cv-00449 Document 1-2 Filed 03/25/22 Page 1 of 20
`Case 3:22-cv-00449 Document 1-2 Filed 03/25/22 Page 1 of 20
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT A
`EXHIBIT A
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00449 Document 1-2 Filed 03/25/22 Page 2 of 20
`
`Service of Process
`Transmittal
`02/25/2022
`CT Log Number 541121276
`
`TO:
`
`RE:
`
`FOR:
`
`Ra-Jjcus Ldsop
`JOHNSON & JOHNSON
`1 Johnson and Johnson Plz
`New Brunswick, NJ 08933-0002
`
`Process Served in Connecticut
`
`Ethicon, Inc.  (Domestic State: NJ)
`
`ENCLOSED ARE COPIES OF LEGAL PROCESS RECEIVED BY THE STATUTORY AGENT OF THE ABOVE COMPANY AS FOLLOWS:
`
`TITLE OF ACTION:
`
`Re: SCOTT BENDER // To: Ethicon, Inc.
`
`DOCUMENT(S) SERVED:
`
`Summons, Complaint, Attachment(s)
`
`COURT/AGENCY:
`
`Stamford Superior Court, CT
`Case # NONE
`
`NATURE OF ACTION:
`
`Product Liability Litigation - Personal Injury - Linx
`
`ON WHOM PROCESS WAS SERVED:
`
`C T Corporation System, East Hartford, CT
`
`DATE AND HOUR OF SERVICE:
`
`By Process Server on 02/25/2022 at 15:08
`
`JURISDICTION SERVED :
`
`Connecticut
`
`APPEARANCE OR ANSWER DUE:
`
`On or before the second day after the return date 03/29/2022
`
`ATTORNEY(S) / SENDER(S):
`
`Brenden P. Leydon
`Wocl Leydon LLC
`80 Fourth Street
`Stamford, CT 06905
`203-333-3339
`
`ACTION ITEMS:
`
`CT has retained the current log, Retain Date: 02/25/2022, Expected Purge Date:
`03/02/2022
`
`Image SOP
`
`Email Notification,  Ra-Jjcus Ldsop  RA-JJCUS-LDSOP@its.jnj.com
`
`Email Notification,  Dasia Abram  dabram2@its.jnj.com
`
`REGISTERED AGENT ADDRESS:
`
`C T Corporation System
`67 Burnside Ave
`East Hartford, CT 06108
`855-844-0739
`ServiceSolutionsTeam@wolterskluwer.com
`The information contained in this Transmittal is provided by CT for quick reference only. It does not constitute a legal opinion, and should not otherwise be
`relied on, as to the nature of action, the amount of damages, the answer date, or any other information contained in the included documents. The recipient(s)
`of this form is responsible for reviewing and interpreting the included documents and taking appropriate action, including consulting with its legal and other
`advisors as necessary. CT disclaims all liability for the information contained in this form, including for any omissions or inaccuracies that may be contained
`therein.
`
`Page 1 of  1 / DP
`
`

`

`SERVICE INTENDED FOR:
`
`Ethicon, Inc.
`
`0. Wolters Kluwer
`
`

`

`SUMMONS - CIVIL
`JD-CV-1 Rev. 2-22
`C.G.S. §§ 51-346, 51-347, 51-349, 51-350, 52-45a, 52-48, 52-259:
`P.B. §§ 3-1 through 3-21, 8-1, 10-13
`
`For information on
`ADA accommodations,
`contact a court clerk or
`go to: www.jud.ct.gov/ADA.
`
`STATE OF CONNECTICUT
`)
`SUPERIOR COURT Lt•71-7'
`www.jud.ct.gov
`
`Instructions are on page 2.
`O Select if amount, legal interest, or property in demand, not including interest and ccsts, is LESS than $2,500.
`
`O Select if amount, legal interest, or property in demand, not including interest and costs, is $2,500 or MORE.
`
`O Select if claiming other relief in addition to, or in place of, money or damages.
`
`G.A.
`El Number:
`
`TO: Any proper officer
`By authority of the State of Connecticut, you are hereby commanded to make due and egal service of this summons and attached complaint.
`Return Date (Must be a Tuesday)
`Telephone number of clerk
`Address of court clerk (Number, street, town and zip code)
`03/29/2022
`( 203 ) 965 —5308
`123 HOYT STREET, STAMFORD CT 06905
`Case type code (See list on page 2)
`At (City/Town)
`Judicial District
`STAMFORD
`Minor: 20
`Major: T
`fl Housing Session
`For the plaintiff(s) enter the appearance of:
`Name and address of attorney, law firm or plaintiff if self-represented (Number. street, town and zip code)
`WOCL LEYDON LLC, 80 FOURTH STREET, STAMFORD CT 06905
`Signature of plaintiff (if self-represented)
`Telephone number
`( 203 ) 333-3339
`The attorney or law firm appearing for the plaintiff, or the plaintiff if
`self-represented, agrees to accept papers (service) electronically
`in this case under Section 10-13 of the Connecticut Practice Book. E 1I Yes El NO
`
`Juris number (if attorney or law firm)
`106151
`
`E-mail address for delivery of papers unier Section 10-13 of the
`Coniecticut Practice Book (if agreed)
`bleydon@wocIleydon.com
`
`Parties
`First
`plaintiff
`Additional
`plaintiff
`First
`defendant
`Additional
`defendant
`Additional
`defendant
`
`Additional
`defendant
`
`Name (Last, First, Middle Initial) and address of each party (Number; street; P.O. Box; town; state; zip; country, if not USA)
`Name: BENDER, SCOTT
`Address: 61 LIBERTY STREET, WILTON, CT 06887
`
`P-01
`
`Name:
`
`Address:
`Name: TORAX MEDICAL, INC., 4188 LEXINGTON AVE, SHOREVIEW MN 55126
`Address: C/O SECRETARY OF THE CORPORATION, 4188 LEXINGTON AVE, SHOREVIEW MN 55126
`Name: ', ETHICON, INC.; U.S. ROUTE 22, SOMERVILLE NJ 08876
`Address: AGENT FOR SERVICE: CT CORPORATION SYSTEM, 67 BURNSIDE AVE, EAST HARTFORD CT 06108
`
`Name:
`Address:
`
`Name:
`
`Address:
`
`•
`
`R-02
`
`D-01
`
`D-02
`
`D-03
`
`D-04
`
`Total number of plaintiffs: 1
`
`Total number of defendants:2
`
`Form JD-CV-2 attached for additional parties
`
`Notice to each defendant
`1. You are being sued. This is a summons in a lawsuit. The complaint attached states the claims the plaintiff is making against you.
`2. To receive further notices, you or your attorney must file an Appearance (form JD-CL-12) with the clerk at the address above. Generally,
`it must be filed on or before the second day after the Return Date. The Return Date is not a hearing date. You do not have to come to
`court on the Return Date unless you receive a separate notice telling you to appear.
`3. If you or your attorney do not file an Appearance on time, a default judgment may be entered against you. You can get an Appearance
`form at the court address above, or on-line at https://jud.ct.gov/webforms/.
`4. If you believe that you have insurance that may cover the claim being made against ,.ou in this lawsuit, you should immediately contact
`your insurance representative. Other actions you may take are described in the Connecticut Practice Book, which may be found in a
`superior court law library or on-line at https://www.jud.ct.gov/pb.htm.
`5. If you have questions about the summons and complaint, you should talk to an attorrey.
`The court staff is not allowed to give advice on legal matters.
`E Commissioner of Superior Court
` Clerk
`
`Date
`02/24/2022
`
`Signed Sign and select proper
`
`Name of person signing
`BRENDEN P. LEYDON, ESQ.
`For Court Use Only
`
`If this summons is signed by a Clerk:
`a. The signing has been done so that the plaintiff(s) will not be denied access to the carts.
`b. It is the responsibility of the plaintiff(s) to ensure that service is made in the manner provided by law.
`c. The court staff is not permitted to give any legal advice in connection with any lawsuit
`d. The Clerk signing this summons at the request of the plaintiff(s) is not responsible in any way for any
`errors or omissions in the summons, any allegations contained in the complaint, or theATRUEteOpy
`summons or complaint.
`ST:
`Signed (Self-represented plaintiff)
`
`I certify I have read and
`understand the above:
`
`File Date
`
`Docket umber
`
`Page 1 of 2
`
`KEVIN SULLIVAN
`STATE MARSHAL, HARTFORD Cni 'wry
`
`

`

`RETURN DATE: MARCH 29, 2022
`
`•• SUPERIOR COURT
`
`SCOTT BENDER
`
`J.D. OF STAMFORD/NORWALK
`
`VS.
`
`•• AT STAMFORD
`
`TORAX MEDICAL, INC.; ETHICON, INC. •• FEBRUARY 24, 2022
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`Defendants Torax Medical, Inc. and Ethicon, Inc. manufactured a defective medical device
`
`such that Plaintiff suffered significant injury. Here, a defectively manufactured LINX was
`
`surgically implanted in Plaintiff to control his gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). After the
`
`LINX was implanted in Plaintiff, Defendants became aware of the manufacturing defect in
`
`Plaintiffs LINX. Defendants recalled Plaintiff's LINX as well as numerous other LINX devices in
`
`the United States and European Union. Moreover, the recall notice refers to an out of specification
`
`condition of the device indicating the device was defectively manufactured.
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`At all times material Plaintiff Scott Bender was a resident of Connecticut.
`
`2.
`
`Defendant Ethicon, Inc. ("Ethicon") is a New Jersey corporation with its
`
`headquarters and principal place of business located at One Johnson & Johnson Plaza, New
`
`Brunswick, New Jersey 08933. Ethicon's medical devices, including the LINX, are distributed,
`
`marketed, sold, and used on medical patients in all fifty United States, including Connecticut and
`
`Colorado, and the European Union.
`
`3.
`
`At all times material, Defendant Ethicon inc. was a wholly owned subsidiary of
`
`Johnson & Johnson.
`
`4.
`
`Defendant Torax Medical, Inc. ("Torax") is a Delaware corporation with its
`
`headquarters and principal place of business located at 4188 Lexington Avenue, Shoreview,
`
`

`

`Minnesota 55126. Torax's medical devices, including the LINX, are distributed, marketed, sold,
`
`and used on medical patients in all fifty United States, including Connecticut and Colorado, and
`
`the European Union.
`
`5.
`
`Johnson & Johnson completed its acquisition of Torax Medical, Inc., a privately-
`
`held medical device company that manufactures and markets the LINXTM Reflux Management
`
`System for the surgical treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease, in March of 2017.
`
`6.
`
`At all times material, Defendant Torax Medical, Inc. was a wholly owned
`
`subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson.
`
`FIRST COUNT: (Product Liability Claim v. Ethicon, Inc.; Torax Medical, Inc.)
`
`7.
`
`At all times relevant herein, Johnson & Johnson was engaged in the business of
`
`placing medical devices into the stream of commerce by designing, patenting, manufacturing,
`
`marketing, packaging, labeling, and selling such devices, including the LINX Reflux Management
`
`System ("LINX") and any unnamed Ethicon, Inc., or Torax Medical, Inc., products designed
`
`and sold for similar purposes, inclusive of the instruments and procedures for implantation. These
`
`products were designed primarily for the purposes of treating gastroesophageal reflux disease
`
`(GERD) and can only be implanted surgically.
`
`8.
`
`At all times relevant herein, Defendant Ethicon, Inc., was engaged in the business
`
`of placing medical devices into the stream of commerce by designing, patenting, manufacturing,
`
`marketing, packaging, labeling, and selling such devices, including the LINX Reflux Management
`
`System ("LINX") and any unnamed Ethicon, Inc., or Torax Medical, Inc., products designed
`
`and sold for similar purposes, inclusive of the instruments and procedures for implantation. These
`
`products were designed primarily for the purposes of treating gastroesophageal reflux disease
`
`(GERD) and can only be implanted surgically.
`
`2
`
`

`

`9.
`
`At all times relevant herein, Defendant Torax Medical, Inc., was engaged in the
`
`business of placing medical devices into the stream of commerce by designing, patenting,
`
`manufacturing, marketing, packaging, labeling, and selling such devices, including the LINX
`
`Reflux Management System ("LINX") and any unnamed Ethicon, Inc., or Torax Medical, Inc.,
`
`products designed and sold for similar purposes, inclusive of the instruments and procedures for
`
`implantation. These products were designed primarily for the purposes of treating
`
`gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and can only be implanted surgically.
`
`10.
`
`The LINX as well as any variations of this product are products targeted at people
`
`who suffer from GERD. LINX is a titanium bead-and-wire ring surgically implanted around a
`
`patient's lower esophageal sphincter (LES) to augment the LES and prevent acid reflux:
`
`(https://wwwjnj.con-ilinnovation/johnson-johnson-medical-innovations-reshaping-future-surgery)
`
`1 1.
`
`The LINX is a product targeted at people who suffer from GERD.
`
`12.
`
`The LINX required pre-market approval by the Food & Drug Administration prior
`
`to it being placed in the stream of commerce and used on patients in the United States and the
`
`European Union. Specifically, in December 2010, Defendant Torax applied for this pre-market
`
`3
`
`

`

`approval, including its manufacturing process, and this approval was granted on March 22, 2012.
`
`The LINX is considered a "restricted" device, meaning it is subject to numerous FDA regulations
`
`regarding the manufacture, distribution, and marketing of the device.
`
`13.
`
`Defendant Ethicon, Inc., is the parent-corporation for Defendant Torax and
`
`participated in the manufacture, distribution, and post-market surveillance of the LINX.
`
`14. On April 20, 2018, Defendant Torax initiated a recall of numerous LINX due to
`
`"an out of specification condition" which would allow "a bead component to separate from an
`
`adjacent wire link."1 This means that the LINX device, normally a continuous loop, would
`
`become discontinuous and open due a defect resulting from improper manufacture.
`
`• .•
`• • •• •
`Torax has become aware of an out of specification condition which may affect a small number of devices
`and allow a bead component to separate from an adjacent wire link. This condition may result in a
`discontinuous or open LINX device.
`
`URGENT: FIELD SAFETY NOTICE (REMOVAL)
`LINX® Reflux Management System
`
`This recall, classified as a Class 2 recall, is considered by the FDA as "a method of
`
`removing.. .products that are in violation of laws" administered by the FDA. FDA records show
`
`that there were 9,131 LINX devices in the stream of commerce as of May 2018.
`
`15. A 16-bead LINX was surgically implanted in Plaintiff by Dr. Reginald Bell on
`
`August 8, 2017. This LINX was subject to the recall described in ¶ 14.
`
`16.
`
`The defective LINX was surgically removed on June 22, 2021.
`
`17.
`
`Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Torax and Ethicon manufactured the LINX which
`
`was implanted in Plaintiff and subsequently failed due to a manufacturing defect. Plaintiff alleges
`
`'Notice of Recall dated May 31, 2018, at
`https://www.accessdatalda.goviscripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfres/res.cfm?id=163589
`
`4
`
`

`

`that Defendants Torax and Ethicon placed Plaintiff's LINX device into the stream of commerce.
`
`Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Torax and Ethicon are corporations who regularly design, test,
`
`assemble, manufacture, sell, and distribute medical devies intended for human use.
`
`18.
`
`The LINX implanted in Plaintiff was manufactured in violation of the Federal
`
`Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, the Medical Device Amendments, and federal regulations
`
`promulgated under these laws and administered by the FDA. The device implanted in Plaintiff was
`
`manufactured in deviation from the manufacturing specifications approved by the FDA and
`
`provided by Defendant Torax for its pre-market approval. Plaintiff's LINX was also manufactured
`
`in deviation of Current Good Manufacturing Practice reeuirements. The LINX was also
`
`defectively manufactured in violation of Connecticut law that parallels federal requirements.
`
`19.
`
`Specifically, Defendants were required to manufacture the defective LINX device
`
`according to Federal Regulations, including but not limited to the following, and failed to do so in:
`
`a) 21 CFR 820.5 — failure to establish and adhere to a quality system to prevent the
`
`manufacture of defective LINX;
`
`b)
`
`21 CFR 820.20 — failure to adhere to approved quality system procedures;
`
`c) 21 CFR 820.70(a),(g), (h), (i) — failure to control production processes to ensure
`
`device conformance with specifications;
`
`d) 21 CFR 820.72 — failure to inspect, measure, and test manufacturing equipment and
`
`materials such that the LINX was defectively manufactured;
`
`e) 21 CFR 820.75 — failure to adhere to process validation and implement process
`
`validation such that the LINX was placed in the stream of commerce in a defective
`
`condition;
`
`Juris No. 106151
`
`Tel: (203) 333-3339
`
`5
`
`

`

`f) 21 CFR 820.90 — failure to prevent non-conforming product, e.g. Plaintiffs LINX,
`
`from entering the stream of commerce in a defective condition;
`
`g) 21 CFR 820.100 — failure to implement corrective processes and preventative
`
`actions due to nonconformities.
`
`20.
`
`As a result of Defendants' violations of federal regulation, approved manufacturing
`
`process, and manufacturing standard of care, Plaintiffs LINX was defectively manufactured and
`
`failed as a result of that defect. At the time the LINX device left the control of Defendants, it was
`
`outside of manufacturing specification and was unreasonably dangerous due to its defective
`
`manufacture.
`
`21.
`
`Each of the foregoing violations, whether taken singularly or in any combination,
`
`were a proximate cause of Plaintiffs injuries and damages which are described in more detail
`
`above and below. Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, jointly and severally.
`
`22.
`
`Defendants owed Plaintiff a duty of ordinary care as would a reasonable and
`
`prudent manufacturer of medical devices to manufacture the LINX such that it would be safe for
`
`its intended use. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to use ordinary care by various acts and
`
`omissions, which constitute negligence, in at least the following ways:
`
`Tel: (203) 333-3339
`
`a) Failure to manufacture the LINX consistent with approved manufacturing standards
`
`such that it was defective and unreasonably dangerous for its intended use;
`
`b) Failure to manufacture the LINX consistent with approved design such that it was
`
`defective and unreasonably dangerous for its intended use;
`
`c) Failure to test and inspect the device prior to placing it in the stream of commerce
`
`in a defective and unreasonably dangerous condition; and
`
`6
`
`

`

`d) Failure to prevent the defectively manufactured device from entering the stream of
`
`commerce in a defective and unreasonably dangerous condition.
`
`23.
`
`As a result of Defendants' breach of its duty of care, Plaintiffs LINX was
`
`defectively manufactured and failed as a result of that defect. At the time the LINX device left the
`
`control of Defendants, it was outside of manufacturing specification and was unreasonably
`
`dangerous due to its defective manufacture.
`
`24.
`
`Each of the foregoing violations, whether taken singularly or in any combination,
`
`were a proximate cause of Plaintiffs injuries and damages which are described in more detail
`
`above and below. Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, jointly and severally.
`
`25.
`
`As a result of the defective LINX the Plaintiff received and suffered painful,
`
`permanent, severe and disabling injuries which were caused, aggravated, accelerated or lighted up
`
`by said occurrence, including:
`
`a) Recurrent hiatal hernia;
`
`b) Recurrent gastroesophageal reflux disease;
`
`c) Paraesophageal hernia;
`
`d) pain; and
`
`e) shock to the Plaintiffs entire nervous sys:em.
`
`Tel: (203) 333-3339
`
`26.
`
`As a further result, the Plaintiff has suffered severe physical and emotional distress,
`
`extreme pain and suffering, embarrassment, limitation of activities, scarring, inconvenience,
`
`disability, and has been unable to perform the work, household, recreational, parental and normal
`
`duties, activities, and functions as the Plaintiff did before said occurrence.
`
`27.
`
`As a result of said injuries, the Plaintiff was required to expend substantial sums of
`
`money and may be required to expend additional sums of money in the future for:
`
`7
`
`

`

`a) Medical care and treatment;
`
`b) Diagnostic treatment;
`
`c) Pharmaceutical expenses; and
`
`d) Pain management.
`
`28.
`
`As a further result the Plaintiff is apprehensive and fearful of future medical
`
`complications resulting from the aforesaid injuries.
`
`29.
`
`At all times material, the Defendant owed the Plaintiff the duty to design,
`
`manufacture, assemble, inspect and/or test the subject product in such a manner and with the
`
`exercise of reasonable care, so as to prevent exposing the Plaintiff to the harms enumerated herein.
`
`30.
`
`At all times material, the Defendants had a duty to warn consumers or intended
`
`users of the subject product of defects which it knew or should have known in the exercise of
`
`ordinary care existed in the subject products, which defects rendered the subject product
`
`unreasonably dangerous to use.
`
`31.
`
`At all times material hereto, the dangerous, hazardous and defective condition
`
`described above in connection with the propensity of the subject product to activate was latent,
`
`and the Plaintiff was not capable of realizing the dangerous condition and could not have
`
`discovered the dangerous condition with a reasonable inspection.
`
`32.
`
`Prior to the sale of the products at issue herein, the Defendants knew of the extreme
`
`dangers presented by the aforementioned product due to its design and/or manufacturing defects.
`
`33.
`
`At the time the Defendant sold the subject product, as well as on August 8, 2017,
`
`the product was designed, tested, manufactured and labeled in a defective condition, unreasonably
`
`dangerous when put to a reasonably anticipated use by its ordinary users, including Plaintiff.
`
`34.
`
`The Plaintiff's injuries either would not have occurred, or would have been
`
`8
`
`

`

`substantially less severe, had the product not had the defects described herein.
`
`35.
`
`The Linx product in question was provided by Defendants and their affiliates in this
`
`state, and was provided to Plaintiff with the reasonable expectation that the product was to be used in
`
`this state, and it was so used in this state, as a result of a distribution system specifically and
`
`intentionally targeting this state. The Defendants each acted in concert to continue a distribution
`
`system of this hazardous product, with virtually no warning of its hazards, intentionally seeking to
`
`benefit from Connecticut residents.
`
`36.
`
`At the time of design, manufacture, distribution, marketing, advertising, distribution,
`
`sale and continuing thereafter, the product was in a defective, dangerous and unreasonable condition
`
`for use by the Plaintiff in that the Defendant:
`
`a. improperly and/or inadequately designed the product;
`
`b. improperly and/or inadequately manufactured, constructed, promoted, and/or sold the
`
`product;
`
`c. failed to properly inspect and/or test the prc duct;
`
`d. failed to properly warn and/or install warnings or instructions to the user, dealer,
`
`purchaser, seller and/or agents of the user about the hazards and dangers associated
`
`with the product, either before or after the sale;
`
`e. failed to establish proper and adequate safety design, risk management, and failure
`
`mode and effects analysis to the design and manufacturing of the product; and
`
`f. advertised, marketed and/or promoted its product when it knew or should have known
`
`of its unsafe and dangerous propensities.
`
`37.
`
`The above described conditions were a substantial factor in producing the Plaintiffs
`
`injuries and damages hereinbefore alleged.
`
`9
`
`Tel: (203) 333-3339
`
`

`

`38.
`
`The Defendant and/or its agents, servants or employees expressly warranted, by way
`
`of, among other things, advertising, promotional campaigns, brochures, literature, marketing plans,
`
`trade name, and goodwill that said product was among other things:
`
`a. safe and fit for its intended purposes and/or uses;
`
`b. safe and fit for its particular purpose;
`
`c. safe and fit for use by persons such as the Plaintiff; and
`
`d. safe and fit for reasonable and expected uses such as that utilized by the Plaintiff.
`
`39.
`
`The Defendant breached these express warranties as described above in providing a
`
`product that was not safe and fit as warranted.
`
`40.
`
`The breach of these express warranties was a substantial factor in producing and
`
`causing the Plaintiffs injuries and damages as alleged.
`
`41.
`
`The Defendant impliedly warranted that the product was:
`
`a. fit for its particular purpose for which it was intended; and/or
`
`b. of merchantable quality.
`
`42.
`
`The Defendant breached these implied warranties as described above in providing a
`
`product that was not fit for its particular purpose or of merchantable quality as impliedly warranted
`
`due to the Defects described herein.
`
`43.
`
`The breach of these implied warranties was a substantial factor in producing and
`
`causing the Plaintiffs injuries and damages as alleged.
`
`44.
`
`The Defendant and/or its agents, servants or employees were negligent and careless in
`
`one or more of the following ways in that the Defendant:
`
`a. improperly and/or inadequately distributed the product;
`
`b. improperly and/or inadequately manufactured, promoted and/or sold the product;
`
`10
`
`Tel: (203) 333-3339
`
`

`

`c. failed to properly inspect and/or test the product;
`
`d. failed to properly warn and/or install warnings or instructions to the user, dealer,
`
`purchaser, seller and/or agents of the user about the hazards and dangers associated
`
`with the product, either before or after the sale;
`
`e. failed to establish proper and adequate safety design, risk management, and failure
`
`mode and effects analysis to the design and manufacturing of the product; and
`
`f. advertised, marketed and/or promoted its product when it knew or should have known
`
`of its unsafe and dangerous propensities.
`
`45.
`
`The above described negligence of the Defendant was a substantial factor in
`
`producing and causing the Plaintiff's injuries and damages hereinbefore alleged.
`
`46.
`
`The Defendant violated Connecticut General Statutes §52-240b by acting with
`
`reckless disregard for the safety of product users such as the Plaintiff, in at least one or more of the
`
`following ways in that the Defendant:
`
`a. improperly and/or inadequately distributed the product;
`
`b. improperly and/or inadequately manufactured, promoted and/or sold the product;
`
`c. failed to properly inspect and/or test the product;
`
`d. failed to properly warn and/or install warnings or instructions to the user, dealer,
`
`purchaser, seller and/or agents of the user about the hazards and dangers associated
`
`with the product, either before or after the sale;
`
`e. failed to establish proper and adequate safety design, risk management, and failure
`
`mode and effects analysis to the design and manufacturing of the product; and
`
`f. advertised, marketed and/or promoted its product when it knew or should have known
`
`of its unsafe and dangerous propensities.
`
`1 1
`
`

`

`47.
`
`The harm, injuries and damages suffered by the Plaintiff was a result of the heedless
`
`and reckless disregard for the safety of product users such as the Plaintiff thereby creating an
`
`unreasonable risk of bodily injury to the Plaintiff.
`
`48.
`
`The Defendant, at all material times, has been engaged in the business of selling
`
`products such as the product sold to the Plaintiff.
`
`49.
`
`The Defendant, and/or its agents, servants or employees through oral and written
`
`representations, represented to the Plaintiff that the product was perfectly safe and well designed.
`
`50.
`
`When making the representations described above, the Defendant actually knew, or in
`
`the exercise of reasonable care should have known, of the dangerous and defective condition of the
`
`product.
`
`51.
`
`The Plaintiff relied on the knowledge, experience and expertise of the Defendant
`
`and/or its agents, servants or employees and was deceived by its representations.
`
`52.
`
`The Defendant has specifically violated CONN. AGENCIES REGS. §42-110B-18(B), by
`
`misrepresenting the standard of its merchandise or services as described above.
`
`53.
`
`The Defendant has specifically violated CoNN. AGENCIES REGS. §42-110B-18(E), by
`
`misrepresenting the nature, characteristics, uses, benefits, and qualities of its merchandise or services
`
`Tel: (203) 333-3339
`
`as described above.
`
`54.
`
`As a result of the above described defective condition of the product, the Defendant
`
`is liable and legally responsible to the plaintiffs for their injuries and losses as set forth herein by
`
`virtue of Connecticut General Statutes § 52-572m, et seq.
`
`SECOND COUNT: CUTPA v. All Defendants
`
`1-54. Paragraphs 1-54 are incorporated by reference and hereby made Paragraphs 1-54 of the
`
`Second Count.
`
`12
`
`

`

`55.
`
`The Defendants have engaged in conduct knowing it put numerous members of the
`
`public at serious risk of injury for the express purpose of maximize its profit and minimizing
`
`expenses despite knowing that reasonable efforts would negate or minimize the risk of injury to the
`
`public.
`
`56.
`
`The Defendants' acts and omissions previously set forth is violative of several civil
`
`and criminal statutes and well established common law doctrines, specifically C.G.S. §42-110b, et
`
`seq, strict liability in tort; negligence; breach of contract; breach of warranty, express or implied;
`
`breach of or failure to discharge a duty to warn or instruct, whether negligent or innocent;
`
`misrepresentation or nondisclosure, whether negligent or innocent, C.G.S. §53-442 Health
`
`Insurance Fraud, C.G.S. §42a-2-314, (implied warranty of merchantability) and §42a-2-315
`
`(implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose) and C.G.S. 53a-119(2) (larceny).
`
`57.
`
`As a result of the Defendants' misrepresentations and nondisclosures, the Plaintiff
`
`paid a higher price for the product than he otherwise would have, if he had paid anything at all.
`
`58.
`
`The foregoing conduct of the Defendants constitutes a violation of the Connecticut
`
`Unfair Trade Practices Act, C.G.S. §42-110a et seq. on the part of the Defendants in that said actions
`
`in the course of the Defendant's trade or business were immoral, oppressive, unscrupulous, and
`
`caused substantial injury to the Plaintiff.
`
`59. A copy of this complaint has been mailed te the Attorney General of the State of
`
`Connecticut and the Commissioner of Consumer Protection.
`
`THIRD COUNT: Civil Conspiracy v. All Defendants
`
`1-59. Paragraphs 1-59 are incorporated by reference and hereby made Paragraphs 1-59 of the Third
`
`Count.
`
`13
`
`

`

`60.
`
`All Defendants had a substantial interest in promoting the sale and use of the LINX
`
`products for significant financial gain, both in implantation of the LINX products and in subsequent
`
`complication management and revision and/or removal surgeries, thereby incentivizing continued use
`
`of the LINX products and the underreporting of complicat:ons to the state and federal authorities. The
`
`continued use and underreporting of complications resulted in the continued sale and implantation of
`
`LINX products at substantial financial gain to all Defendants and each Defendant conspired with the
`
`others to cause, condone, permit and/or allow the continued use and underreporting of complications
`
`and failure to properly warn, advise and/or inform the patient for the common goal of financial gain
`
`to each of them.
`
`THE PLAINTIFF,
`
`By
`
`Brenden P. Leydon
`bleydon@WoclLeydon.com
`Wocl Leydon LLC
`80 Fourth Street
`Stamford, CT 06905
`(203) 333-3339
`Juris No. 106151
`
`Tel: (203) 333-3339
`
`A TRUE COPY
`ATTEST:
`
` c,j2SLeL^i\
`KEVIN SULU VAN
`STATE MARSHAL, HARTFORD COUNTY
`
`14
`
`

`

`RETURN DATE: MARCH 29, 2022
`
`SUPERIOR COURT
`
`SCOTT BENDER
`
`VS.
`
`J.D. OF STAMFORD/NORWALK
`
`AT STAMFORD
`
`TORAX MEDICAL, INC.; ETHICON, INC.
`
`FEBRUARY 24, 2022
`
`STATEMENT OF AMOUNT IN DEMAND
`
`The amount in demand is in excess of FIFTEEN THOUSAND ($15,000.00) DOLLARS,
`
`exclusive of interest and costs.
`
`THE PLAINTIFF,
`
`By
`Ion
`Brenden
`bleydon@WoclLeydon.corn
`Wocl Leydon LLC
`80 Fourth Street
`Stamford, CT 06905
`(203) 333-3339
`Juris No. 106151
`
`01
`
`rn
`rn
`4.1
`
`ru
`
`ru
`CD
`
`. .
`
`A TRUE COPY
`ATTEST:
`
`KEVIN SULLIVAN
`STATE MARSHAL HARTFORD COUNTY
`
`15
`
`

`

`RETURN DATE: MARCH 29, 2022
`
`SUPERIOR COURT
`
`SCOTT BENDER
`
`VS.
`
`J.D. OF STAMFORD/NORWALK
`
`AT STAMFORD
`
`TORAX MEDICAL, INC.; ETHICON, INC.
`
`FEBRUARY 24, 2022
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff claims:
`
`1. Monetary damages;
`
`2. Attorney fees pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes §52-240a;
`
`3. Punitive damages pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes §52-240B and the common law; and
`
`4. Attorney's fees and punitive damages pursuant to the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act,
`C.G.S. §42-110a et seq.
`
`5. Any other further relief in law or equity which may appertain.
`
`THE PLAINTIFF,
`
`Brenden P. Leydon
`bleydon@WoclLeydon.corn
`Wocl Leydort LLC
`80 Fourth Street
`Stamford, CT 06905
`(203) 333-3339
`Juris No. 106151
`
`A TRUE COPY
`ATTES
`
`t.
`
`KEVIN SULLIVAN
`STATE MARSHAL, HAR-rprsnn
`
`•
`
`16
`
`