Case: 1:21-cv-00700-DRC Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/08/21 Page: 1 of 6 PAGEID #: 1
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
`WESTERN DIVISION
`
`CASE NO.: 1:21-cv-700
`
`COMPLAINT WITH JURY DEMAND
`
`JULIE BRASHEAR
`1952 Erion Road
`Batavia, OH 45103
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`PACIRA PHARMACEUTICALS,
`INC.
`c/o The Corporation Trust Company
`Corporation Trust Center
`1209 Orange Street
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`
`and
`
`PACIRA PHARMACEUTICALS
`INTERNATIONAL, INC.
`c/o The Corporation Trust Company
`Corporation Trust Center
`1209 Orange Street
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`
`and
`
`PACIRA BIOSCIENCES, INC.
`c/o The Corporation Trust Company
`Corporation Trust Center
`1209 Orange Street
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`
`Defendants.
`
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`
`PARTIES, VENUE AND JURISDICTION
`
`Plaintiff, Julie Brashear, for her Complaint against Defendants, states and alleges as
`
`follows:
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
`WESTERN DIVISION
`
`CASE NO.: 1:21-cv-700
`
`COMPLAINT WITH JURY DEMAND
`
`JULIE BRASHEAR
`1952 Erion Road
`Batavia, OH 45103
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`PACIRA PHARMACEUTICALS,
`INC.
`c/o The Corporation Trust Company
`Corporation Trust Center
`1209 Orange Street
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`
`and
`
`PACIRA PHARMACEUTICALS
`INTERNATIONAL, INC.
`c/o The Corporation Trust Company
`Corporation Trust Center
`1209 Orange Street
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`
`and
`
`PACIRA BIOSCIENCES, INC.
`c/o The Corporation Trust Company
`Corporation Trust Center
`1209 Orange Street
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`
`Defendants.
`
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`
`PARTIES, VENUE AND JURISDICTION
`
`Plaintiff, Julie Brashear, for her Complaint against Defendants, states and alleges as
`
`follows:
`
`
`
`Case: 1:21-cv-00700-DRC Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/08/21 Page: 2 of 6 PAGEID #: 2
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff, Julie Brashear, is and was at all times relevant herein a resident of
`
`Clermont County, Ohio.
`
`2.
`
`Defendant, Pacira Pharmaceuticals, Inc., is a foreign for-profit organization
`
`incorporated in Delaware with its principal place of business in Parsippany, New Jersey. Its
`
`registered agent is The Corporation Trust Company, Corporation Trust Center, 1209 Orange
`
`Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19801.
`
`3.
`
`Defendant, Pacira Pharmaceuticals International, Inc., is a foreign for-profit
`
`organization incorporated in Delaware with its principal place of business in Parsippany, New
`
`Jersey. Its registered agent is The Corporation Trust Company, Corporation Trust Center, 1209
`
`Orange Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19801.
`
`4.
`
`Defendant, Pacira Biosciences, Inc.,
`
`is a foreign for-profit organization
`
`incorporated in Delaware with its principal place of business in Parsippany, New Jersey. Its
`
`registered agent is The Corporation Trust Company, Corporation Trust Center, 1209 Orange
`
`Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19801.
`
`5.
`
`Pacira Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Pacira Pharmaceuticals International, Inc., and Pacira
`
`Biosciences, Inc. will hereinafter collectively be referred to as “Defendants” or “Pacira
`
`Defendants.”
`
`6.
`
`Julie Brashear’s injuries occurred in Hamilton County, Ohio. Venue is proper in
`
`this Court.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Plaintiff and Defendants.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter as there is diversity of
`
`citizenship between Plaintiff and Defendants and the amount in exceed $75,000.
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case: 1:21-cv-00700-DRC Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/08/21 Page: 3 of 6 PAGEID #: 3
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`9.
`
`Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations contained in Paragraph 1 through
`
`8 as if fully restated here.
`
`10.
`
`Julie Brashear underwent left shoulder replacement surgery at Mercy Health –
`
`Anderson Hospital on or about November 7, 2019.
`
`11.
`
`After her left shoulder surgery, the treating medical professionals used an injectable
`
`anesthetic, Exparel (generically known as “liposomal bupivacaine”), as part of the post-operative
`
`pain relief modalities.
`
`12.
`
`At all times relevant herein, Exparel was developed and is produced by Pacira
`
`Biosciences, Inc. and/or Pacira Pharaceuticals, Inc. and/or Pacira Pharmaceuticals International,
`
`Inc.
`
`13.
`
`Exparel was defectively developed, designed, marketed and produced. These
`
`defects cause persistent diaphragmatic paralysis which is harmful and potentially deadly to patients
`
`receiving post-surgical medical treatment where Exparel was used for non-opioid pain
`
`management.
`
`14.
`
`As a result of the Exparel injection for nerve-blocking at Plaintiff’s brachial plexus,
`
`Plaintiff’s phrenic nerve was injured, resulting in paralysis and injury to the left side of her
`
`diaphragm. This caused Plaintiff to develop pneumonia and long-term breathing issues including,
`
`but not limited to, shortness of breath, atelectasis of the left lung, and the inability to use her left
`
`lung.
`
`15.
`
`Defendants knew that an Exparel injection created a substantial risk that patients
`
`would develop lung and diaphragm issues, including diaphragm paralysis.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case: 1:21-cv-00700-DRC Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/08/21 Page: 4 of 6 PAGEID #: 4
`
`16.
`
`Despite this knowledge, Defendants failed to warn Julie Brashear or the prescribing
`
`physicians about this serious risk associated with the use of Exparel.
`
`17.
`
`Plaintiff learned that her breathing and lung problems were not related to
`
`pneumonia, but rather due to hemidiaphragm paralysis and left lung atelectasis following a sniff
`
`test on March 13, 2020.
`
`CLAIM ONE – PRODUCT LIABILITY – DESIGN DEFECT BY PACIRA
`DEFENDANTS
`
`Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1
`
`18.
`
`through 17 as if fully restated here.
`
`19.
`
`Defendants improperly and defectively designed and developed the Exparel
`
`medication.
`
`20.
`
`21.
`
`This claim is being brought pursuant to R.C. 2307.75.
`
`It was foreseeable when the Exparel left the hands of the Pacira Defendants that it
`
`would cause harm, or that it was more dangerous than the ordinary consumer would expect.
`
`22.
`
`As a proximate result of the improper and defective design and development of the
`
`Exparel medication, Julie Brashear was caused injury.
`
`CLAIM TWO – PRODUCT LIABILITY – FAILURE TO WARN
`
`23.
`
`Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations contained in Paragraph 1 through
`
`22 as if fully restated here.
`
`24.
`
`The Pacira Defendants were aware of the defects and dangers of Exparel,
`
`specifically the possibility of diaphragm and/or lung injuries in patients subsequent to Exparel
`
`injection in the brachial plexus.
`
`25.
`
`This claim is being brought pursuant to R.C. 2307.76.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case: 1:21-cv-00700-DRC Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/08/21 Page: 5 of 6 PAGEID #: 5
`
`26.
`
`The Pacira Defendants failed to warn Julie Brashear or her treating physicians of
`
`the dangers of Exparel in a manner that a reasonable drug manufacturer or developer would have
`
`done.
`
`27.
`
`As a proximate result of the failure to warn Julie Brashear or her treating physicians
`
`of the defects and dangers of Exparel, Julie Brashear was caused injury.
`
`CLAIM THREE – PRODUCT LIABILITY – FAILURE TO CONFORM TO
`REPRESENTATIONS
`
`Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations contained in Paragraph 1 through
`
`28.
`
`27 as if fully restated here.
`
`29.
`
`The Pacira Defendants represented that Exparel was safe and effective for use in
`
`post-operative pain management.
`
`30.
`
`31.
`
`32.
`
`This claim is being brought pursuant to R.C. 2307.77.
`
`The Exparel did not conform to the representations made by the Pacira Defendants.
`
`As a proximate result of the failure of the Exparel to conform to the representations
`
`of the Pacira Defendants, Julie Brashear was caused injury.
`
`CLAIM FOUR – PRODUCT LIABILITY - NEGLIGENCE
`
`33.
`
`Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations contained in Paragraph 1 through
`
`32 as if fully restated here.
`
`34.
`
`The Pacira Defendants were negligent as developers, designers, manufacturers, and
`
`suppliers of Exparel.
`
`35.
`
`36.
`
`This claim is being brought pursuant to R.C. 2307.78.
`
`The negligence of the Defendants allowed a dangerous drug to be released to the
`
`market, sold to physicians, and used to cause injury to Julie Brashear.
`
`37.
`
`The negligence of Defendants was the proximate cause of Julie Brashear’s injury.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case: 1:21-cv-00700-DRC Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/08/21 Page: 6 of 6 PAGEID #: 6
`
`CLAIM FIVE – PUNITIVE DAMAGES AGAINST DEFENDANTS
`
`38.
`
`Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations contained in Paragraph 1 through
`
`37 as if fully restated here.
`
`39.
`
`Defendants acted with malice and in conscious disregard for the health and safety
`
`of its customers, including Julie Brashear.
`
`40.
`
`41.
`
`Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages against Defendants.
`
`Plaintiff is entitled to recover her attorney’s fees and expenses against Defendants.
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, for her Complaint against Defendants, prays for relief in an
`
`amount in excess of the minimum jurisdictional limits of this Court on all her claims, punitive
`
`damages, attorney’s fees, and expenses incurred herein, and any and all further relief as this Court
`
`deems just and proper.
`
`JURY DEMAND
`
`Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury.
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`THOMAS LAW OFFICES PLLC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Louis C. Schneider
`Louis C. Schneider (0076588)
`Attorney for Plaintiff
`250 East Fifth Street, Suite 440
`Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
`Telephone:
`(513) 360-6480
`Facsimile:
`(502) 495-3943
`lou.schneider@thomaslawoffices.com
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
