Case 2:21-cv-05486-BMS Document 1-4 Filed 12/16/21 Page 1 of 12
`Case 2:21-cv-05486-BMS Document1-4 Filed 12/16/21 Page 1 of 12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT A
`EXHIBIT A
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-05486-BMS Document1-4 Filed 12/16/21 Page 1 of 12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT A
`EXHIBIT A
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-05486-BMS Document 1-4 Filed 12/16/21 Page 2 of 12
`
`Filed and Attested by the
`Office of Judicial Records
`06 DEC 2021 03:17 pm
`A. STAMATO
`
`Case ID: 201201009
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-05486-BMS Document 1-4 Filed 12/16/21 Page 3 of 12
`
`RICK STOCK LAW
`By: Edwin L. Stock, Esquire
`Attorney I.D. No. 43787
`By: Alex V. Alfieri
`Attorney I.D. No. 329477
`50 North Fifth Street
`4th Floor
`Reading, Pennsylvania 19601
`Telephone:
`(610) 372-5588
`Fax
`(267) 284-4190
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`LAUREN A. DICAIR,
`ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE
`OF BRUCE G. DICAIR
`
`IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
`OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY,
`PENNSYLVANIA
`
`vs.
`
`Plaintiff
`
`CIVIL ACTION
`
`GILEAD SCIENCE, INC.,
`GILEAD SCIENCESJNC.,
`GILEAD PHARMASSETT LLC., AND
`ASEGUA THERAPEUTICS LLC
`
`Defendant
`
`DECEMBER TERM, 2020
`
`NO. 01009
`
`COMPLAINT
`AND NOW comes Lauren A. DiCair, Administratrix of the Estate of Bruce G. DiCair,
`
`by and through her attorneys, Edwin L. Stock and Rick Stock Law, and she respectfully files this
`
`Complaint and in support thereof avers the following:
`
`1. Lauren A. DiCair, Administratrix of the Estate of Bruce G. DiCair, hereinafter
`
`“Plaintiff’, is the daughter of the decedent, Bruce G. DiCair, hereinafter “Decedent”, and
`
`brings this suit in her capacity as the Administratrix of said Estate.
`
`2. At all times herein mentioned, Plaintiff and Decedent is/was a citizen, domiciliary and
`
`permanent resident of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
`
`Case ID: 201201009
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-05486-BMS Document 1-4 Filed 12/16/21 Page 4 of 12
`
`3. Gilead Science, Inc., hereinafter “Defendant”, is a corporation organized and existing
`
`under the law of the State of Delaware, with its principal place of business and
`
`citizenship in California, 333 Lakeside Drive, Foster City, CA 94404.
`
`4. Gilead Sciences Inc., hereinafter “Defendant”, is a corporation organized and existing
`
`under the law of the State of Delaware, with its principal place of business and
`
`citizenship in California, 333 Lakeside Drive, Foster City, CA 94404.
`
`5. Gilead Pharmassett LLC., hereinafter “Defendant”, is a limited liability corporation
`
`organized and existing under the law of the State of Delaware, with its principal place of
`
`business and citizenship in California, 333 Lakeside Drive, Foster City, CA 94404.
`
`6. Asegua Therapeutics LLC., hereinafter “Defendant”, is a limited liability corporation
`
`organized and existing under the law of the State of Delaware, with its principal place of
`
`business and citizenship in California, 333 Lakeside Drive, Foster City, CA 94404.
`
`7. Gilead Science, Inc., Gilead Sciences Inc., Gilead Pharmassett LLC., Asegua
`
`Therapeutics LLC., collectively hereinafter referred to as “Defendants”.
`
`8. At all relevant times herein, Defendants were and currently are doing business in the
`
`Commonwealth of Pennsylvania including but not limited to within the bounds of
`
`Philadelphia County.
`
`9. At all relevant times herein, Defendants transacts and transacted business in the
`
`Commonwealth of Pennsylvania including but not limited to within the bounds of
`
`Philadelphia County.
`
`10. At all relevant times herein, Defendants contracted to supply goods and services in the
`
`Commonwealth of Pennsylvania including but not limited to within the bounds of
`
`Philadelphia County.
`
`Case ID: 201201009
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-05486-BMS Document 1-4 Filed 12/16/21 Page 5 of 12
`
`11. The amount in controversy exceeds $50,000 exclusive of interest and costs.
`
`12. This Honorable Court has jurisdiction pursuant to P.A.R.C.P. § 2179 (1) though (4).
`
`COUNT I - NEGLIGENCE
`
`13. At all relevant times, including on or after September 27,20217, Defendants designed,
`
`manufactured, produced, licensed, sold, distributed, and/or marketed a prescription
`
`medication known as Ledipasvir-sofosbuvir aka Harvoni, hereinafter “the medication.”
`
`14. At all relevant times, including on or after September 27, 2017, Defendants were in the
`
`business of, among other things, designing, manufacturing, producing, licensing, selling,
`
`distributing, and marketing for consumer use the medication.
`
`15. The medication is a prescription medicine used to treat adults with chronic hepatitis C
`
`infection with or without cirrhosis.
`
`16. Defendants knew, or should have known, that the medication was dangerous and harmful
`
`and capable of causing illness, including Hepatocellular Carcinoma, resulting in death to
`
`human beings.
`
`17. On or after September 27, 2017 Decedent was prescribed the medication and proceeded
`
`to adhere to the prescribed dosage in a manner that was consistent with the medications
`
`intended and foreseeable purpose.
`
`18. Following taking of the medication, Decedent was caused to develop Hepatocellular
`
`Carcinoma which led to his death on December 19, 2018.
`
`19. Plaintiff/Decedent was required to expend substantial sums of money for appropriate
`
`medical care and treatment.
`
`20. Defendants, its agents, servants and/or employees, were negligent:
`
`Case ID: 201201009
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-05486-BMS Document 1-4 Filed 12/16/21 Page 6 of 12
`
`a. in the design, manufacture, production, licensing, distribution, marketing, testing,
`
`and sale of the medication;
`
`b. in failing to properly inspect same;
`
`i
`
`c. in negligently, carelessly, and recklessly selling, supplying, and endorsing the
`
`medication, in manufacturing, selling, distributing, and delivering an inherently
`
`dangerous medication without performing the proper tests and safeguards against
`
`said dangers;
`
`d. in failing to design, manufacture, sell, distribute, and deliver a medication which
`
`did not lead to death;
`
`e. in acting in a careless and reckless manner;
`
`f. in causing suffering and permitting the Decedent to be exposed to a dangerous
`
`condition;
`
`g. in causing suffering and permitting a dangerous medication to be marketed, sold.
`
`and distributed to the general public, including the Decedent herein;
`
`h. in holding out the medication herein to be safe for use when in fact it was not;
`
`i. in selling a defective medication;
`
`j. in failing to warn of the medication’s defects and dangerous and harmful
`
`capabilities;
`
`k. in failing to fulfill its continuing duty to warn of the medication’s defects;
`
`1. in failing to warn of the defects after the sale.
`
`21. Defendants were negligent in failing to remove the medication from the market or to
`
`recall same and remedy its defective condition after having notice of its dangerous and
`
`harmful condition when used for its intended foreseeable purposes.
`
`Case ID: 201201009
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-05486-BMS Document 1-4 Filed 12/16/21 Page 7 of 12
`
`22. The Decedent’s development of Hepatocellular Carcinoma was caused solely by the
`
`negligence of Defendants.
`
`23. By reason of the foregoing, Plaintiff sustained damages.
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant for damages the Plaintiff
`suffered together with interest, the costs and disbursements of this action, and such other and
`further relief as this court may deem just and proper.
`
`COUNT II - BREACH OF EXPRESSED WARRANTY
`
`24. Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as if each was more
`
`fully set forth herein.
`
`25. Prior to and during Decedent’s use of the medication. Defendants, in order to promote
`
`and induce the purchase of its product, expressly warranted to the general public and to
`
`the Decedent, through the media, by advertisement, literature, and other means, that
`
`consumers could safely use the medication without the risk of developing Hepatocellular
`
`Carcinoma.
`
`26. Decedent relied upon the skill, knowledge, judgment, representations, and warranties of
`
`Defendants when he used defendant’s medication.
`
`27. The representations and warranties were false, misleading, and inaccurate, in that the
`
`medication utilized by the Decedent, when tested, was, and proved to be, casually related
`
`to the development of Hepatocellular Carcinoma.
`
`28. The medication was unsafe, dangerous, defective, and not of merchantable quality.
`
`29. The Defendants did breach the express warranty.
`
`30. Decedent’s death was proximately caused by the breach of express warranties of
`
`defendants.
`
`Case ID: 201201009
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-05486-BMS Document 1-4 Filed 12/16/21 Page 8 of 12
`
`31. By reason of the foregoing, Plaintiff sustained damages.
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant for damages the Plaintiff
`suffered together with interest, the costs and disbursements of this action, and such other and
`further relief as this court may deem just and proper.
`COUNT III - BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY
`
`32. Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as if each was more
`
`fully set forth herein.
`
`33. The Defendant’s impliedly represented that the medication was safe, such that it did not
`
`cause Hepatocellular Carcinoma, of merchantable quality, and fit for the ordinary
`
`purposes for which the medication was intended to be used.
`
`34. The Decedent relied upon the skill, knowledge, judgment, representations, and warranties
`
`of Defendants.
`
`35. The representations and warranties were false, misleading, and inaccurate, in that the
`
`medication utilized by the Decedent, when tested, was, and proved to be, casually related
`
`to the development of Hepatocellular Carcinoma.
`
`36. The medication was unsafe, dangerous, defective, and not of merchantable quality.
`
`37. The Defendants did breach the implied warranty.
`
`38. Decedent’s death was proximately caused by the breach of express warranties of
`
`defendants.
`
`39. By reason of the foregoing, Plaintiff sustained damages.
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant for damages the Plaintiff
`suffered together with interest, the costs and disbursements of this action, and such other and
`further relief as this court may deem just and proper.
`
`Case ID: 201201009
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-05486-BMS Document 1-4 Filed 12/16/21 Page 9 of 12
`
`COUNT IV - PRODUCTS LIABILITY
`
`40. Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as if each was more
`
`fully set forth herein.
`
`41. Defendants are engaged in the pharmaceutical business.
`
`42. The medication was expected to and did reach consumers and Decedent without
`
`substantial change in the condition.
`
`43. The medication utilized by Decedent was defective such that it was dangerous to users
`
`and/or consumers, and in particular to Decedent.
`
`44. The medication failed to perform in accordance with the expectations of the Decedent
`
`and the consumer such that it cased, without sufficient warning to the consumer,
`
`Hepatocellular Carcinoma.
`
`45. The defective condition caused the Decedents death.
`
`46. At the time of the occurrence herein, the product was being used for the purpose and in
`
`the manner normally intended.
`
`47. Decedent could not by the exercise of reasonable care have discovered the defects and
`
`perceived their dangers due to the Defendants failure to warn of such dangers.
`
`'
`
`48. Defendants sold the product in a defective condition such that they failed to warn of the
`
`risk of the development of Hepatocellular Carcinoma as a result of taking the medication.
`
`49. As a proximate result of Defendant’s sale of the medication and there failure to warn of
`
`the dangers of the medication the Decedent developed Defendants sold the product in a
`
`Case ID: 201201009
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-05486-BMS Document 1-4 Filed 12/16/21 Page 10 of 12
`
`defective condition such that they failed to warn of the risk of the development of
`
`Hepatocellular Carcinoma and subsequently passed away.
`
`50. By reason of the foregoing, Plaintiff sustained damages.
`
`51. By reason of the foregoing, Defendants are strictly liable to Plaintiff.
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant for damages the Plaintiff
`suffered together with interest, the costs and disbursements of this action, and such other and
`further relief as this court may deem just and proper.
`
`RICK STOCK LAW
`
`By:
`
`Edwin L. Stock, Esquire, I.D. # 43787
`50 North Fifth Street
`4th Floor
`Reading, Pennsylvania 19601
`(610) 372-5588
`(267) 284-4190 FAX
`
`Case ID: 201201009
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-05486-BMS Document 1-4 Filed 12/16/21 Page 11 of 12
`
`VERIFICATION
`
`I, Edwin L. Stock, Esquire, Attorney for Plaintiff, hereby verify that the facts set forth
`
`therein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief and that this
`
`verification is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 4904 relating to unsworn
`
`falsification to authorities.
`
`Date: December 6, 2021
`
`Edwin L. Stock, Esquire
`
`Case ID: 201201009
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-05486-BMS Document 1-4 Filed 12/16/21 Page 12 of 12
`
`Filed and Attested by the
`Office of Judicial Records
`06 DEC 2021 03:17 pm
`A. STAMATO
`
`Case ID: 201201009
`
`
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
