Document RJ0dBRGExVQG51dpYGkqMxqKV

JAMES LEWIS GRIFFITH MICHAEL C. HEMSLEY* THOMAS W. SMITH WENDY FEIN COOPERt ARLEN M. TOMPKINS** EDWARD J. SCHWA8ENLAND NAOMI PLAKINS O'NEILL JEFFREY M. KOLANSKY M. ROSS GLICKMAN SLADE H. McLAUGHUNf* ROBIN E. WILLIAMS t WILLIAM L. WEINERt DOMINIC A. 0HAURENT1S. JR.T Gr if f it h & Bu r r , p .c . 1608 WALNUT STREET Uf 1' CHARLES B. BURR. H RONALD WINTERft JAMES W. CHRISTIE* * JOHN F. X. MONAGHAN. JR. WENDY H. KOCH ALAN STEPHEN GOLD ROBERT H HOWLANOttT JAMES F. RYAN UNDA S. PORR NANCYJEAN P. PETRO MICHAEL F. D*MAACO MARY ELIZABETH WOLFE t PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA 19103 (21S) 893-1234 ATTORNEYS AT LAW PROCTORS IN ADMIRALTY ALSO MEMBER D C. 8AR ALSO MEMBER N.Y. BAR TALSO MEMBER N.J. BAR tTMEMBER. N.Y. BAR ONLY tftMEMBER. N.J. BAR ONLY December 12, 1985 2 DOYLESTOWN OFFICE 44 E. COURT STREET DOYLESTOWN. PA 18901 (215)345-1013 NEW JERSEY OFFICES GRIFFITH 5 BURR ONE GHEENTREE CENTRE SUITE 201 MARLTON. NJ 08053 (609)665-3077 PRINCETON PROFESSIONAL PARK ' SUITE B-7 801 EWING STREET PRINCETON. NJ 08540 ! ,: (609) 665-3077 Dante Mattioni, Esquire Mattioni, Mattioni & Mattioni, Ltd. Suite 200 330 Market Street East Philadelphia, PA 19106 r e : Mc Cu l l o u g h v . a s s o c ia t e d l e a d , et ai. ,, C.C.P. August Term, 1985, No. 3253 Our File No. 007-0281 ., , ' Dear Mr. Mattioni: / , Please find enclosed a trijeT and correct copy of the Preliminary Objections of Defendants, A. M. Alberico, M.p. and Arthur Stiffel, M.D. /to Plaintiffs' Complaint in reference to the above-captioned matter, the original Preliminary Objections' having1'bieen duly filed of record with the Court.' Kindly note the'endorsement to file your response to said Preliminary Objections within thirty (30) days of service! thereof. Very truly youirs. JLG/eot Enclosure cc: John F. Kent, Esquire Curtis P. Cheyney, III, Esquire G. Wayne Renneisen, Esquire (w/enclosure) , w : Claude P. Brown, M.D. . , Francis J. A. Renzulli, M.D. </- Sidney Lerner, M.D. (w/enclosure) NL 000039597 -MOTION' COURT COVER SHEET C.tPTION: ROBERT & PRECILLA McCULLOUGH v. ASSOCIATED LEAD, INC., et al. AUGUS.E No. 3253 _7ERM 198 5 FILINC OF: Defendants, A. M. Alberico, M.D. and Arthur Stiffel, M.D. MOVING/t^ft^ PARTY (Indicate on*) TYPE OP PILING (Indicate one): OTHER PARTIES: State in che space below che naaes, addresses and phone numbers .1. Discovery Motion 2 Motion to Determine Prelim. Objections of all ocher attorneys of record and identify the party chat each represents. 3. Motion for Summary Judgaent 4. Petition for Leave to Join Add'1. Deft. Dante Mattxoni, Esquire 5. Petition for Preliminary Injunction Suite 200 6. Petition to Open Judgaent 330 Market Street East 7. Petition for Leave to Serve Process Philadelphia, PA 19106 8. Petition for Leave to Aaend Pleading 9. Petition to Consolidate Actions (215) 629-1600 Attorney for Plaintiffs 10. Petition to Compromise Minor's Action .11. Petition for Leave to Vlthdrav 12 Petition for Reconsideration John F. Kent, Esquire 2900 Two Mellon Bank Center 13. Other (specify): Preliminary Obiectior s Philadelphia, PA 19102 of Defendants. A. M. Alberico. M.D. nd (215) 569-2333 14. AnswHtrtXBtxxaiui Arthur Stiffel. JLD. to Plaintiffs' Complaint Attorney for Defendant, Mine Safety Appliances, Inc. CASE STATUS: Identify the Judge to whoa this case is. assigned (if any) or, if the ease appears on a trial list, or has appeared on a trial list, state the list and che position on chat list. If the case is an arbitration case, state such,; and if che case has been assigned ah arbitration hearing date, state that date; This case has not been assigned to an individual judge, nor has it been published on the trial list of the "Legal Intelligencer." Curtis P. Cheyney, III, Esquire 1700 Land Title Building Philadelphia, PA 19110 (215) 564-5190 Attorney for Defendant, Associated Lead, Inc. (See attached sheet.) CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO PHILA. CIVIL RULE 140(k) (Not required for motions for preliminary or special injunction, judgment on the pleadings, or summary judgment): I hereby certify chat a reasonable effort to resolve che dispute underlying this motion or petition was unsuccessful. Attached hereto is a separate page which sets forth che efforts made to resolve che dispute, che means used for such effort (i.e. meeting, telephone call, letters, etc.), the dates thereof, and che result thereof. DATE OF FILINC: Form 43A FITH, ESQUIRE for Moving/Bmspamdting Party NL 000039598 N26093.01 G. Wayne Renneisen, Esquire 1600 Market Street 12th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 854-6260 Attorney for Defendant, National Lead Industries, Inc. Claude P. Brown, M.D. 1930 Chestnut Street Aldine Professional Building Philadelphia, PA 19107 Francis J. A. Renzulli, M.D. c/o National Lead Company 2545 Aramingo Avenue Philadelphia, PA 19125 Sidney Lerner, M.D. University of Cincinnati 3233 Eden Cincinnati, OH 45267 GRIFFITH & BURR, P.C. BY: JAMES LEWIS GRIFFITH ATTY. I.D. NO.: 05023 1608 WALNUT STREET PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 (215) 893-1234 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT ARTHUR STIFFEL, M.D. AND A.M. ABERICO, M.D. ROBERT & PRECILLA MCCULLOUGH v. ASSOCIATED LEAD, INC., et al. : COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : PHILADELPHIA COUNTY : : AUGUST TERM, 1984 : NO. 3253 ORDER AND NOW, this day of , 1986, upon consideration of the foregoing Preliminary Objections of defendants^ Arthur Stiffel, M.D. , A.M. Aberico, M.D., Memorandum of Law in support thereof, and any answer thereto, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that plaintiffs' claim for punitive damages in Counts VIII and XVIII of the plaintiffs' Complaint shall be, and the same are hereby dismissed without prejudice as against defendants, Arthur Stiffel, M.D. and A.M. Aberico, M.D. - BY THE COURT: J. NL 000039600 j N 26093.02 GRIFFITH & BURR, P.C. BY: JAMES LEWIS GRIFFITH ATTY. I.D. NO.: 05023 1608 WALNUT STREET PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 (215) 893-1234 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT ARTHUR STIFFEL, M.D. AND A.M. ABERICO, M.D. ROBERT & PRECILLA McCULLOUGH v. ASSOCIATED LEAD, INC., et al. : COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : PHILADELPHIA COUNTY : : AUGUST TERM, 1984 ? NO. 3253 .............. .....0 R D E R . ...... AND NOW, this day of , 1986, upon consideration of the foregoing Preliminary Objections of defendants^ Arthur Stiffel, M.D., A.M. Aberico, M.D., Memorandum of Law in support thereof, and any answer thereto, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that plaintiffs' Complaint is stricken and that plaintiffs are required to file a more specific Complaint in this matter within thirty (30) days from the date of this Order. BY THE COURT: J. NL 000039601 GRIFFITH & BURR, P.C. BY: JAMES LEWIS GRIFFITH ATTY. I.D. NO.: 05023 1608 WALNUT STREET PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 (215) 893-1234 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT ARTHUR STIFFEL, M.D. AND A.M. ABERICO, M.D. ROBERT & PRECILLA MCCULLOUGH, h/w v. ASSOCIATED LEAD, INC., et al. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS PHILADELPHIA COUNTY AUGUST TERM, 1984 NO. 3253 PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS OF DEFENDANTS, , ARTHUR STIFFEL, M.D.' and A.M. ABERICO, M.D., .__TO PLAINTIFFS* COMPLAINT_____________ Defendants, Arthur Stiffel, M.D. and A.M. Aberico, M.D., by and through their counsel, Griffith & Burr, P.C., preliminarily object to plaintiffs' Complaint'alleging as follows: 1. This is an action for damages brOught by plaintiffs against a number of defendants based tipon alleged>occupational exposure of Robert McCullough to lead, arsenic, Cadmium, heavy metals and other alleged toxic substances. 2. On or about November 12, 1985, plaintiffs, by counsel, filed the instant Complaint against the above-captioned defendants. (A true and correct copy of plaintiffs' Complaint is attached hereto, . i> , , i \h ` ^ incorporated herein by reference and marked Exhibit "A"). NL 000039602 N 26093.03 3. The Complaint alleges that plaintiff-employee's alleged exposure occurred during the course of his employment at a Philadelphia lead smelting and/or refining plant. 4. Plaintiffs' Complaint as it relates to Dts. Stiffel, Aberico, and various other defendant medical physicians attempts to plead a theory of medical malpractice based upon their respective failures to properly diagnose plaintiff's medical condition, and/or treat that condition or otherwise take proper remedial action. 5. Plaintiffs' Complaint also pleads theories of liability against the plaintiff's, employers, "certain unnamed Health Testing Centers," and a manufacturer of certain safety appliances, including respirators. ............. 6. Paragraph 70 (Count VIII) of plaintiffs' Complaint i T states: "Defendants medical health practitioners knowingly, wilfully, wantonly and recklessly inflicted injury upon plaintiff..." That paragraph's subsections sets forth various generalized, conclusory allegations of negligence which constitute mere conclusions of law against the aforementioned defendant-physicians. 7. Paragraph 71 (Count VIII) of plaintiffs' Complaint states: ::; Defendants [defendant physicians] knew of * should have known of the injury to plaintiff that would be caused by their failure to properly administer to and adequately inform , plaintiff of plaintiff's injuries, yet recklessly disregarded the consequences of Such failure. 8. Paragraph 72 (Count VIII) of plaintiffs' Complaint -2- NL 000039603 states: Defendants [defendant physicians] intentionally, wilfully, and wantonly abandoned plaintiff and his co-workers after knowingly concealing plaintiff's injuries from him. Plaintiff's injuries have been directly and proximately caused, aggravated and seriously enhanced by defendants' concealment. 9. Count XVIII of plaintiffs' Complaint is asserted against all defendants and states: The defendants' acts and omissions were intentional, wanton, wilful and with reckless indifference to the consequences as is more fully set forth in the above counts. 10. The majority of those remaining Counts in plaintiffs' Complaint addressed to Drs. Stiffel and Aberico (Counts VIII and XVIII) contain only "boilerplate" pleadings containing vague, overlybroad, non-specific allegations and conclusions of law directed against defendant-physicians as a whole. I. PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS IN THE NATURE OF A DEMURRER 11 . Defendants, Arthur Stiffel, M.D. and A.M. Aberico, v M.D., incorporate herein by reference paragraphs 1 through 10 above as fully as though each were set forth herein at length. 12. Counts VIII and XVIII of plaintiffs' Complaint attempt to state a cause of action against defendant-physicians for punitive damages. 13. Counts VIII and XVIII of plaintiffs' Complaint fail to state a cause of action for punitive damages and merely contain standardized, boilerplate allegations of negligence. 3 000039604 14. Plaintiffs' Complaint fails to plead any material facts to support their claims for punitive damages. 15. Pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1019, a Complaint must contain the material facts on which a cause of action is based. 16. Therefore, plaintiffs' Complaint fails to state a cause of action under Pennsylvania law for punitive damages. Pa. R.C.P. No. 1017(b)(4), 42 Pa. C.S.A. WHEREFORE, defendants, Arthur Stiffel, M.D. and A.M. Aberico, M.D., respectfully request these Preliminary Objections, in the nature of a demurrer be sustained, and that Counts VIII and XVIII of plaintiffs' Complaint be dismissed without prejudice. i T II. PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS IN THE NATURE OF A MORE SPECIFIC PLEADING Defendants, Arthur Stiffel, M.D. and A.M. Aberico, M.D., hereby preliminarily object to the remainder of plaintiffs' Complaint, as it relates to them and the allegations therein and request a more specific pleading for the following reasons: 17. Plaintiffs' allegations in paragraphs 16 through 20, 23 and 25 appear to attempt to set forth, a cause of action for fraud/misrepresentation against all defendants. 18. For reasons more specifically set forth in defendants' Memorandum of Law, Plaintiffs' allegations in paragraphs 16 through 20, 23, and 25 fail to set forth with the necessary particularity, material facts as to Drs. Stiffel and Aberico to bring a cause of action for fraud/misrepresentation. -4NL 000039605 ,19. Furthermore, the allegations of intentional misconduct, malicious misconduct, concealment, negligence, etc., as set forth in paragraphs twenty-three (23) and twenty-five (25), of plaintiffs' Complaint fail to set forth the material facts necessary to permit defendants to answer and to raise affirmative defenses to said averments. Specifically, there is no identity as to which defendant(s) the said averments are directed to, which defendant's agent, servant, and/or employee is alleged to have committed such acts, etc. Also, there is an absence of any reference to particular material facts which support the aforementioned allegations (i.e., the dates and times in which the so-called agent, servant or employee is alleged to have committed these intentional acts and intended harm upon plaintiff) . -j 20. The allegations of plaintiffs' Complaint directed towards physician-defendants, Drs. Stiffel and Americo (Counts VI, VII, VIII, IX, XVIII, XIX and XX) fail to set forth sufficient material facts to permit defendants to answer and raise affirmative defenses to the averments. 21. Count IX of plaintiffs' Complaint attempts to set forth a claim for breach of contract between plaintiff's employer and defendant-physicians. 22. Count IX of plaintiffs' Complaint fails to allege sufficient material facts including, but not limited to, the following: .- (a) the existence of any contract; (b) the parties to the purported contract; -5NL 000039606 (c) the terms of the purported contract; (d) the duration of the purported contract; (e) how the purported contract was breached; (f) when the purported contract was breached; (g) which defendant-physician(s), if any, breached the purported contract; (h) what was the duty of each, individual defendant- physician under the purported contract; (i) what did the "medical supervision and treatment provided by virtue of this "contract" consist of. 23. As a result of the aforementioned insufficient factual pleadings defendants, Drs. Stiffel and Americo, are unable to intelligently answer these allegations and raiseaffirmative defenses to plaintiffs' Complaint. ' 1i ' 24. Count XX of plaintiffs' Complaint attempts to set forth a claim of conspiracy by defendants against plaintiff; Robert McCullough. . 25. For reasons more specifically set1 forth in defendants' Memorandum of Law, Count XX of plaintiffs' Complaint fails to allege , 1 1 >' * , ', 1* ` 1 x' I' > J ' , \ \> i1 . < 1 , > < % > ?* - * > . . , ' v `' ( >, i ' i ,x > i j ' . .. t. r, % ,, i v ` s, . * r '' 1 sufficient material facts to enable defendants to reasonably and 1' 1 ` 1' 't is * V( ^ }I 5 t / |1 i % intelligently respond to the allegations contained therein. WHEREFORE, defendants, Arthur Stiffel, M.D,. and A.M. Aberico, M.D., respectfully request that plaintiffs' Complaint be , 1 , 1 ' J' '> , \ > T f i i . ( >; ( M ^1 stricken and that plaintiffs be required tp file a more specific Complaint, pursuant to the attached Order. ML 000039607 GRIFFITH & BURR, P.C. BY & 2S LEWIS GRIFFITH Attorneys for Defendants, Arthur Stiffel, M.D, and A.M. Aberico, M.D. , GRIFFITH & BURR, P.C. BY: JAMES LEWIS GRIFFITH ATTY. I.D. NO.: 05023 1608 WALNUT STREET PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 (215) 893-1234 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT ARTHUR STIFFEL, M.D. AND A.M. ABERICO, M.D. ROBERT & PRECILLA MCCULLOUGH V. ASSOCIATED LEAD, INC., et al. : COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : PHILADELPHIA COUNTY : AUGUST TERM, 1984 : NO. 3253 MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS OF DEFENDANTS, ARTHUR STIFFEL, M.D., AND A.M. ABERICO. M.D. . TO PLAINTIFFS* COMPLAINT I. Plaintiffs are Not Entitled to Punitive Damages as a Matter of Law. ' vT" 1 5 Defendants, Arthur Stiffel, M.D. and A.M. Aberico, M.D., file these Preliminary Objections in the nature of a demurrer to dismiss counts VIII and.XVIII of plaintiffs1 Complaint pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1017(b)(4), on the ground that plaintiffs' Complaint fails to allege sufficient facts to sustain a claim for punitive damages. (See Adams v. Rodfonq, 7 D.&C.3d 463 (1978)). Counts VIII and XVIII merely set forth bare legal conclusions and boilerplate allegations that defendants' conduct was outrageous and/or constituted a reckless disregard for the safety of plaintiff. The Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, unlike the Federal Rules, still require fact pleading as opposed to notice pleading. Plaintiffs' Complaint is completely devoid of any facts which indicate either in what manner the NL 000039608 N 26093.04 defendants' conduct involved alleged "evil motive" or a "reckless indifference to the rights of others," or that such "evil motive" or "reckless indifference" actually exists. Counts VIII and XVIII of plaintiffs' Complaint should, therefore, be dismissed. It is well-settled that punitive damages are not a favorite of the Court. See e.g., Cochetti v. Desmond, 572 F.2d 102 (3rd Cir. 1978) (applying Pennsylvania law). In Pennsylvania, punitive damages may only be recovered where defendant is found to have acted with "bad motive" or with a "reckless indifference to the interests of a plaintiff," meaning that a defendant intentionally did an act of an unreasonable character, in total disregard of a risk known to the defendant or so obvious that he 'm' 'u- s1 t b e taken to ha .v.e ' b" 'een aw are.. -o ' f.i the risk. Smith v. Brown, 283 Pa. Super. 116, 423 A.2d 743 (1980). Punitive damages are not awarded for mere negligence or even gross negligence but must be based upon conduct which is "malicious", "wanton", "reckless", "willful" or "oppressive". Chambers v. Montgomery, 411 Pa. 339, 344-45, 192 A.2d 355, 358 (1963); see also, Feld v. Merriam, ______ Pa. ______ , 485 A. 2d 742 (1984). , Further, one must look to the "act itself together with all the circumstances including the motive of the wrong-doers and the relations between the parties . . ." Chambers v, Montgomery, supra., 411 Pa. at 345, 192 A.2d at 358; See also, Pittsburgh Outdoor Advertising Co. v. Virginia Manor Apartments, Inc., 436 Pa. 350, 260 A.2d 801 (1970). The Pennsylvania Supreme Court in its recent opinion in Feld v. Merriam, supra., stated that the Court has embraced the guidelines -2- NL 000039609 enunciated'in 908(2) of the Restatement (Second) of Torts regarding the imposition of punitive damages, holding: "Punitive damages may be awarded for conduct that is outrageous, because of the defendant's evil motive or his reckless indifference to the rights of others." See also, McSparran v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co., 253 F. Supp. 130, 134 (E.D. Pa. 1966); Chambers v. Montgomery, 411 Pa. 339, 344, 192 A.2d 355, 358 (1963); Hughes v. Babcock, 349 Pa. 475, 480-481, 37 A.2d 551, 554 (1944); Focht v. Rabada. 217 Pa. Super. 35, 388, 268 A.2d 151, 159; Delahantv v. First Pennsylvania Bank, N.A., Pa. Super. ______ , 464 A.2d 1243, 1263 (1983) . "Reckless indifference to the interestsof others," or as it is- sometimes referred to, "wanton misconduct" means "the actor has .> intentionally done an act of an unreasonable character, in disregard of a risk known to him or so obvious that he must be taken to have been aware of it, and so great as to make it highly probable that harm would follow." Evans v. Philadelphia Transportation Company, 418 Pa. 567, 212 A.2d 440 (1965). A careful reading of the plaintiffs' averments would convince any reader that nowhere is there a mention of an intentional act of such character and magnitude on the part of defendants, Arthur Stiffel, M.D. and A.M. Aberico, M.D. Most persuasive is the case of Giannini, et al. v. Foy, et al. , 67 Del. Co. 26 (1979), in which Judge LaBrum determined that when the allegations of a Complaint detail alleged conduct of the defendant which is negligent, it is not sufficient, in order to support a claim for punitive damages, merely to allege that the conduct was wanton, reckless, cr grossly negligent. The Complaint must allege facts which -3- NL 000039610 indicate in which manner the defendant knew or had reason to know that their conduct involved such a high degree of probability that substantial harm to others would result. This feeling is echoed in the Feld opinion by Justice McDermott when he states that the Court should examine the actor's conduct. Justice McDermott held that the state of mind of the actor is vital to the question of whether the conduct was sufficient to qualify as intentional, reckless or malicious. Most recently, on June 28, 1985, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court again considered the issue of punitive damages. The Court held that only reckless conduct which the "actor knows, or has reason to know, ... of facts which create a high degree of risk of physical ....................................... i- - j harm to another, and deliberately proceeds to act, or to fail to act, in conscience disregard of or indifference to, that risk; ..." is sufficient to create a jury question on the issue of punitive damages. Martin v. Johns Manyille Corporation, ______ Pa. , 494 A.2d 1088, 1097 (1985). In the instant case, plaintiffs' Complaint does not adequately allege a claim for punitive damages. Plaintiffs' Complaint merely contains standard boilerplate allegations of negligence, recklessness, etc., but does not specifically plead any facts which would support a finding of "evil motive" or "reckless indifference" to plaintiff/employee. See, Exhibit "A". Furthermore, a complaint for punitive damages is insufficient if it merely avers that the defendant's acts were "with reckless indifference to the rights of plaintiff;" the factual circumstances giving rise to an inference -4NL 000039611 concerning the defendant's state of mind must be pleaded. Witchey v. Lissi, 17 D.&C.3rd 131 (Clinton Cty. 1980). There are no facts alleged by the plaintiffs in this case which would indicate such knowledge or reason to possess such knowledge on the part of defendants, Arthur Stiffel, M.D. and A.M. Aberico, M.D. Therefore, there are no facts averred against defendant-physicians to support plaintiffs' claim for punitive damages. ., Furthermore, the Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure No. 1033 provides for amendment of pleadings. Historically, the right of amendment in Pennsylvania lias always been generous, and the courts have been liberal in interpreting a party's right to artiend his/her pleading. See, Goodrich-Amram 2d 1033:1. The Rule is broadly stated so as to permit an amendment "at any time". Goodrich-Amram 2d, 1033:4; Deifer v. General Motors Corp., 56 D.&C.2d 726 (1972). Thus, there is no reason why plaintiffs' claim for punitive damages should not be stricken, without prejudice, until such time as discovery may reveal those factual circumstances Which may warrant the pleading of a claim for punitive damges under the aforementioned standards. If and until such facts are developed, moving defendants should not be subjected to a claim for punitive damages. Such a claim without any factual basis is unfairly prejudicial to the interests of the defendants in their litigation!, exposing their personal assets to an award of such danger. ,; Since plaintiffs' Complaint does not allege, directly or indirectly, any facts whicti indicate that defendants, Arthur Stiffel, M.D. and A.M. Aberico, M.D. acted with reckless indifference to 5- NL 000039612 plaintiff,-employee's rights, their Complaint does not support a claim for punitive damages and, therefore, must be dismissed without prejudice to amend. II. Motion for More Specific Pleading Defendants, Arthur Stiffel, M.D. and A.M. Aberico, M.D., assert this Motion for a More Specific Complaint pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure No. 1017(b)(3) which provides in pertinent part: (b) Preliminary objections are available to any party and are limited to * *' * (3) a motion for a more specific pleading; j Defendants maintain that plaintiffs' Complaint fails to adequately plead material facts upon which their cause of action is based thereby violating Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure No. 1019(a) which provides: The material facts on which a cause of action is based shall be stated in a concise and ' summary form. The nature of defendants' objection is that plaintiffs have failed to prepare their pleading in a manner which will allow defendants, Arthur Stiffel, M.D. and A.M. Aberico, M.D., to intellegibly respond by Answer and New Matter. Plaintiffs have filed nothing other than a standard negligence complaint using boilerplate language, conclusions of law, all of which are unsupported by any facts. Specifically, plaintiffs' allegations of fraud/misrepresentation (paragraphs 16 to 20), intentional misconduct -6- NL 000039613 and malicious conduct (paragraphs 23, 25,), negligence (Counts VI, VII, VIII, XVIII, XX), and breach of contract (Count IX) fail to plead sufficient material facts to support plaintiffs' claim against defendants Stiffel and Aberico. The Pennsylvania Courts have repeatedly held that pleadings must be sufficiently specific to enable the responding party to prepare a defense. See Philadelphia City Intermediate Unit No. 26 v. Com., Department of Education, 60 Pa. Cmwlth. 546, 432 A.2d 1121, 1125 (1981). A Complaint is sufficient only if it informs the defendant, with accuracy and completeness, of the specific basis on which recovery is sought, so that he may know without question upon what grounds to make his defense. Agricultural Insurance Company v. ..... '? Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Company, 39 Northumb L.J. 191 (1967). The Courts have also held that a pleading must be sufficiently specific so as to advise the defendant as to what action on his/her part is deemed by the complaintant, to have been improper. Maddox v. Commonwealth Department of Agriculture, et al., _ Pa. Cmwlth. ___, 386 A.2d 620 (1978). The Courts have held that it is no excuses to assert that defendant knows the missing averments. As indicated by the above cases, defendants Arthur Stiffel, M.D. and A.M. Aberico, M.D., are entitled to pleadings which are specific as to the material facts upon which plaintiffs base their cause of action against defendants so that they may prepare a defense of this matter. Plaintiffs' allegations Of fraud contained in paragraphs 16 through 20, 23 and 25 violates Pa. R.C.P. No. 1019(b), which provides -7- NL 000039614 that "averments of fraud or mistake shall be averred with particularity." It has long been held that a detailed statement of facts to sustain fraud or mistake is required in a pleading. Goodrich-Amram 2d 1019(b):l; Shinn v. Stemler. 163 Pa. Super. 363, 61 A.2d 777 (1948). Plaintiffs' Complaint neglects to set forth the necessary specific facts to indicate which defendants actually made the purported misrepresentations to plaintiff-employee, and whether any relationship existed between the defendants and plaintiff-employee which would give rise to a claim of fraud/misrepresentation. Similarly, plaintiffs fail to set forth the material facts necessary to permit defendants to answer and raise affirmative defense to plaintiffs' claims of intentional/malicious misconduct (paragraphs .4 23, 25, 35, 38), negligence (Counts VI, VII, VIII and XVIII) and ! breach of contract (County IX). Specifically, the allegations in County IX are totally void of any facts which establish the existence of a contract let alone the specifics of who were parties to the purported contract, was it in writing, the terms of the alleged contract, its duration, etc. The mere allegation that defendant have exclusive control over this information is unpersuasive to avoid meeting these essention requirements of pleading. Defendants are not requesting information of an evidentiary nature but are merely requesting a pleading which is sufficiently specific so as to advise Drs. Stiffel and Aberico as to each of their individual actions which plaintiffs have deemed improper. Without such a pleading defendants, Drs. Stiffel and Aberico, are severely prejudiced and unable to adequately prepare their defense in this matter. NL 000039615 -8- WHEREFORE, defendants, Arthur Stiffel, M.D. and A.M. Aberico, M.D., respectfully request that plaintiffs' Complaint be stricken and that plaintiffs be required to file a morespecific Complaint, pursuant to the attached Order. GRIFFITH & BURR, P.C. BY: JAMES LEWIS GRIFFITH ^ Attorneys for Defendants, Arthur Stiffel, M.D. and A.M. Aberico, M.D. .i T NL 000039616 VERIFICATI 0 N JAMES LEWIS GRIFFITH, ESQUIRE, hereby states that he is the Attorney for Defendants, A.M. Alberico, M.D. and Arthur Stiffel, M.D., in this action and verifies that the statements made in the foregoing PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS OF DEFENDANTS, A. M. ALBERICO, M.D. AND ARTHUR STIFFEL, M.D. TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT are true and correct to the best of his know ledge, information and belief. The undersigned understands that the statements made therein are made subject to penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. 4904 '- relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. * NL 000039617 SO ARBITRATION JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Unu , , uv 1 4 lacjO ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES HEARING IS NOT REQUIRED MATTIONI, MATTIONI & MATTIONI, LTD BY* EUGENE MATTIONI, ESQUIRE Identification No.: 15291 Suite 200, 330 Market Street East Philadelphia, FA 19106 (215) 629-1600 Attorney for Plaintiffs ROBERT MC CULLOUGH and PRECILLA MC CULLOUGH 6534 N. 18th Street Philadelphia, PA 19126 v. ASSOCIATED LEAD, INC. 2545 Aramingo Avenue Philadelphia, PA 19125 and NATIONAL LEAD INDUSTRIES, INC. 2545 Aramingo Avenue Philadelphia, PA 19125 also Wychoff Mills Road Hightstown, NJ 08520 also . P.O. Box 700 Hightstown, NJ 08520 and NATIONAL LEAD. INDUSTRIES, INC. PIGMENTS AND CHEMICALS DIVISION 2545 Aramingo Avenue Philadelphia, PA 19125 also ..... Wychoff Mills Road Hightstown, NJ 08520 also P.O. Box 700 Hightstown, NJ 08520 and COURT OF COMMON PLEAS PHILADELPHIA COUNTY AUGUST TERM, 1985 NO. 3253 .* T ARTHUR STIFFEL, M.D. 1107 E. Erie Avenue Philadelphia, PA 19124 and A.M. ABER1CO, M.D. 900 E. Howell Street Philadelphia, PA 19149 and CLAUDE P. BROWN, M.D. 1930 Chostnut Street Aldine Professional Bldg. Philadelphia, PA 19107 and FRANCIS J.A. RENZULLI, M.D. c/o National Lead Company 2545 Aramingo Avenue Philadelphia, FA 19125 . and SIDNEY LERNER, M.D. University of Cincinnati 3233 Eden Cincinnati, OB 45267 and NL 000039618 N 26093.05 N.L. INDUSTRIES, INC. 2545 Araaingo Avenue Philadelphia, PA 19125 also Wycholf Mills Road Bightstown, MJ 08520 also P.O. Box 700 Bightstown, NJ 08520 and NATIONAL LEAD COMPANY 2607 Bast Cumberland Street Philadelphia, PA 19125 also Wychoff Mills Road Bightstown, MJ 08520 also P.O. Box 700 Bightstown, NJ 08520 MINE SAFETY APPLIANCE COMPANY 609 Penn Center Boulevard Pittsburgh, PA 15235 Certain unnamed Bealth Testing Centers COMPLAINT NOTICE You hoop hoari ouodln court.lt you with to defend oqdnot tho dotono Mt forth In th, fodouring pqgn* you muot pk, action mw nvmv |iSwmi ovyiaiJm|mr niwnpipn mu iww n flWtd* by MfliriM i wrttun sppMi poroonelfv or toy fROsiiy Mid fllhid b n s Mm sddi thii court your dofonooo or oaLb|ma c--nt mbmumi twe n miir is m AnmmW.i ioHqoninot you. You ire warned that W you fad to do to die c o m moy preeood without you and o judgmemmay too entered oqoinot you toy the court without hjfthor nedco for ony ittonoy dofmori In tho contplolnt or tor ony OwIMto CWMM MOo ^MMUi M^aiAOOod^POfilhVAIS MCBMKIm. YOU IMIQM.OU money or pnpirtv of Mho, righto important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKi TMS PAPitTQ YOUN LAWYER AT ONCEIF YOU 00 NOT HAVC A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONC. g o t o on t el eph o n * Tie o f f ic e met f o r t h ml o w t o RNO OUT WHERE YOU CAN OCT LtOAL HELP. PHILADELPHIA BAR ASSOCIATION LAWYER REFERRAL. AND INFORMATION SERVICE One Roodtoi* Como, ' PhUodoIpnH. Pmoyfvonlo 1*107 Tdtphona: ai*-2**-1701 AVISO pid^nMM *^uisini, uotod dono vokteo 1301 dloo do plan d partir d* Ip fccho do lo domondi y la noUricocidn. Hoeo forio ooontor uno oompqrqndo oocrito o on pocoono o con un otoogodo y drifojo, o lo eofto on forme oocrito ouo dotoncoo o ouo cbjifliMiiiNdMViMidMiMconndiiupMioni. Sniwndo duo d uotod no oo dehordo. lo carte tomeri modideo y puedo lo domando on contra ouya tin promo omeo o Adomda. la eorta puedo decadv a favor dd V require quo uotod complo con todeo lot lo oete domando. Uotod puedo perdor dktoro o ouo LltVI ISTA DCMANOA A UN AtOGAOO INMEBATAMENTE. NO TUNE AtOGAOO O S NO TUNC (L OMCRO SUFICIENTS 0C PAGAR TAL SOIVKX). VAYA EN PERSONA OUAME POP TELlPONO A LA OnCMA CUYA DWCCOON SC ENCUENTRA ESCWTA AIAJO PARA AVCMGUAR DONO* SE PUEDE CONSCGUM ASartNOA LEGAL ASOOAClbNOE UCENQADOS DE BLADELFIA SERVKX) OE REFOEnRs)ERNMDriAlMECINbmFOwRMACiON LEGAL FEodaMa. Enrwyfvenie 1*107 TaWtano: 21S-23S-1701 NL 000039619 MO a r b it r a t io n JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES HEARING IS NOT REQUIRED MATTIONI, MATTIONI & MATTIONI, LTD. BYi EUGENE MATTIONI, ESQUIRE Identification No.t 15291 Suite 200, 330 Market Street East Philadelphia, PA 19106 (215)629-1600 Attorney for Plaintiffs ROBERT MC CULLOUGB and PRECILLA MC CULLOUGB 6534 N. ISth Street Philadelphia, PA 19120 v. ASSOCIATED LEAD, INC. 2545 Aramingo Avenue Philadelphia, PA 19125 and NATIONAL LEAD INDUSTRIES, INC. 2545 Aramingo Avenue Philadelphia, PA 19125 also Wychoff Mills Road Hightstovn, NJ 08520 also P.O. Box 700 Hightstovn, NJ 08520 and NATIONAL LEAD INDUSTRIES, INC. PIGMENTS AND CHEMICALS DIVISION 2545 Aramingo Avenue Philadelphia, PA 19125 also Wychoff Mills Road Hightstovn, NJ 08520 also P.O. Box 700 Hightstovn, NJ 08520 and COURT OF COMMON PLEAS PHILADELPHIA COUNTY AUGUST TERM, 1985 NO. 3253 -* ARTHUR STIFFEL, M.D. 1107 E. Erie Avenue Philadelphia, PA 19124 and A.M. ABERICO, M.D. 900 E. Howell Street Philadelphia, PA 19149 and CLAUDE P. BROWN, M.D. 1930 Chestnut Street Aldine Professional Bldg. Philadelphia, PA 19107 and FRANCIS J.A. RENZULLI, M.D. c/o National Lead Company 2545 Aramingo Avenue Philadelphia, PA 19125 and SIDNEY LERNER, M.D. University of Cincinnati 3233 Eden Cincinnati, OH 45267 and NL 000039620 N.L. INDUSTRIES, INC. 2545 Araaingo Avanua Philadelphia, PA 19125 also Wychoff Mills Road Bightstown, NJ 08520 also P.O. Bos 700 Bightstown, NJ 08520 and RATIONAL LEAD COMPANY 2607 East Cuaberland Stcaat Philadelphia, PA 19125 also Wychoff Mills Road Bightstown, NJ 08520 also P.O. Box 700 Bightstown, NJ 08520 MINE SAFETY APPLIANCE COMPANY 609 Pann Center Boulevard Pittsburgh, PA 15235 Certain unnaaed Bealth Testing Centers COMPLAINT Plaintiffs, through undersigned counsel, sues defendants, Jk Associated Lead, ("Associated Lead") Inc.; National Lead Industries, Inc., ("National Lead Industries"); National Lead Indus tries, Inc., Pigaents and Cheaicals Division ("Pigaents and Cheaical Divisions"); National Lead Coapany, ("National Lead") N.L. Industries, Inc, ("N.L."); Arthur Stiffel, M.D.; B. M. Aberico, M.D.; Claude P. Brown, M.D.; Francis J. B. Renzulli, M.D.; Sidney Lerner, M.D.; and Mine Safety Appliance Coapany and for their causes of action, plaintiffs respectfully state: 1. Plaintiffs herein are: Robert McCullough and Precilla McCullough, husband and wife, who live at 6534 N. 18th Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19126. 2. Defendants herein are: ML 000039621 a. Associated Lead, Inc., la a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 2545 Araaingo Avenue, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19125. b. Rational Lead Industries, Inc., is a Hew Jersey corporation with its principal place of business at 2545 Araaingo Avenue, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19125. c. National Lead Industries, Inc., Pigaents and Chen, ical Division, is a division and/or affiliated corporation of Ra tional Lead Industries, and it has its principal place of busi ness at 2545 Araaingo Avenue, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19125. d. National Lead Coapany is a New Jersey corporation, with its principal place of business at 2607...last. ^Cuaberland__ Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19125. e. N.L. Industries, Inc. is a New Jersey corporation with its principal place of business at 2545 Araaingo Avenue, Philadelphia, PA, 19125. f. Arthur Stiffel, M.D., is an individualresiding or having an office at 1107 E. Erie Avenue, Philadelphia, Pennsyl vania 19124. g. H. M. Aberico, M.D., is an individual, residing at or having offices at 900 B. Howell Street, Philadelphia, Pennsyl vania 19149.- h. Claude P. Brown, N.D., is an individual, residing at or having offices at 1930 Chestnut Street, Aldine Professional Building, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107. i. Francis J. A. Renzulli, M.D. is an individual who has offices at 2545 Araaingo Avenue, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania ML 000039622 j. Sidney Lerner, M.D., is an individual who has offices at the University of Cincinnati, 3233 Eden Street, Cin- s cinnati, Ohio, 45267. At all tines herein. Or. Lerner did business in Pennsylvania, County of Philadelphia. k. Nine Safety Appliance Company, is a Pennsylvania corporation with its principal place of business at 609 Penn Center Boulevard, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15235. l. Unknown medical offices who performed certain med ical services, health tests or other tests on Mr. McCullough. 3. The amount in controversy is in excess of $20,000 exclusive of interest and costs. 4. This Court has jurisdiction of this matter pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S.A. S931. 5. This Court has venue of this matter pursuant to Pa.^R. Civil Procedure, under 1006, 1042. 6. In or around 1960, defendant. National Lead Industries, owned and operated a lead smelting and/or refining plant at 2545 Aramingo Avenue, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19125. National Lead Company and National Lead Industries, Pigments and Chemicals Di vision, were and remain subsidiaries t NationalLead Industries and N.L. Industries. 7. Upon information and belief, the operations of the plant at 2545 Aramingo Avenue included, but were not limited to the manufacture, refinement and/or use of white lead, red lead, lithange, sugar of lead, arsenate of lead' lead chronate, lead sulphate, lead nitrate, fluo-silicate. -3- NL 000039623 8. In or around 1967, National Laad changad thair name to N. L. Industries. In all other respects, the plant at 2545 Araaingo Avenue'remained the same. 9. In or around 1980, Associated Lead purchased and/or otherwise acquired the plant at 2545 Araaingo Avenue from Mo tional Lead Industries* 10. Upon information and belief, the operation of the plant included, but was not Halted to the manufacturer refineaent and/ or use of white lead, red lead, lithange, sugar of lead, arsenate of lead, lead chronate, lead sulphate, lead nitrate, fluosilicate. 11. At all tiaes material hereto# the aforementioned de fendants provided services and products either directly to plain tiff or through bis employer which they represented were for^the purposes of protecting and keeping safe the plaintiff from injury and illness caused by lead and other chemicals, harmful vapors, dust, noise and any other damaging exposure by reason of his em ployment in the metals smelting and refining plant. 12. Plaintiff was employed by Associated Lead, Inc., and its predecessors in interest for a period commencing on or about the year 1960, to on or about the year 1980. 13. At all times material hereto. Associated LeadInc., and its predecessors in interest, were engaged in the business of smelting and refining secondary lead based scrap materials and other heavy metals. 14. At all times material hereto, the plaintiff was exposed to heavy metals, including without limitation lead scrap, lead 4- NL 000039624 dross, aolten and hot lead, cadmium, arsenic, chemicals, harmful dusts end vapors and excessive noise, among other noxious substances produced at the secondary lead smelting facility. 15. At all times material hereto, plaintiff made use of any and all clothing and devices provided to him at the work place for the purpose of preventing the plaintiff from contracting injury and illness by reason of exposure to heavy metals, chem icals, vapors, dust, noise, lead, cadmium and arsenic, among other toxic substances within the lead plant. 16. At all times material hereto, plaintiff relied upon the representations made by his superiors that the clothing and de vices would protect and keep him safe from toxic lead poisoning, arsenic poisoning, cadmium poisoning, kidney disease, renal fail ure and other injuries and impairments related to toxic hea^y metal exposure, chemical exposure, and exposure to other toxic substances and noises within the lead facility. 17. As a direct result of his reasonable reliance upon those products, devices and services, plaintiff has contracted toxic heavy metal poisoning, lead poisoning, renal dysfunction, deafness and all other injuries and impairments, psychological and physiological, precipitated and enhanced by plaintiff's exposure to~ his toxic work environment. Plaintiff has been permanently injured and disabled therefrom. 18. At all times material hereto, all of the defendants had actual and/or constructive knowledge of the medical and health risks to the plaintiff created and enhancedhy plaintiff's ex posure to lead, arsenic, cadmium, heavy metals and chemicals, NL 000039625 loud noises snd the toxic vapors, dusts, fuses and noise given off or produced by the same in the workplace. 19. Notwithstanding the knowledge of all defendants, each of them wilfully, wantonly and in reckless disregard of the con sequences, or negligently, failed to notify the plaintiff of the degree and severity of this risk and assured plaintiff of the safety of the procedures follow'd and safety precautions taken. 20. Defendants failed to provide and/or they provided im proper or inadequate notices or warnings to plaintiff of the risks of his work environment, misrepresentedthe safety of the workplace, concealed the harm they knew or should have known was being caused plaintiff by his work exposure and otherwise breached their respective duties to the plaintiff. 21. As a direct result of his reliance upon the produ<$ts and devices aforementioned, plaintiff has in the past and will in the future be unable to attend to his usual duties and responsi bilities, be unable to work or be eaployed, be unable to enjoy life's joys and pleasures and advocations to his great loss as follows: a. Loss of eaployaent which may continue indefinitely into the future at a loss of earnings in excess of $20,000.00 per year; b. Reduced earning capacity as a result of his impair ment; c. Loss of general health, strength, welfare and vi- tality; d. Loss of consortia; NL 000039626 e. He hwj been required to apply fo. public assistance to his great embarrassment and humiliation; . He has suffered great pain, inconvenience, embar rassment, mental anguish and humiliation, including emotional and psychogenic overlays which may and will continue into the future; g. He now suffers, or may in the future suffer, the following medical conditions; toxic lead poisoning, adverse hematological effects, anemia, gastrointestinal ailments, anorexia, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea. Constipation, colic, neurological effects, headache, insomnia, lead encephalopathy, per sonality changes, bad dreams, hyperirritability, trem ors, sensory and motor dysfunction, renal dysfunction, chronic interstitial nephritis, chronic hypertension,gout, cardiovascular abnormalities, cerebrovascular abnormalities, impaired adrenal and pituitary function, pulmonary dysfunction, impaired hearing, lassitude, severe muscle and joint involvement, psychological and psychiatric problems, impotence, loss of sexual drive, deafness and such other medical and emotional conditions as treating and examining specialists fifcd to be caused, precipitated, aggravated or enhanced by the work exposure. 22. As a direct result of his reliance upon the products and devices aforementioned, and ineffective health screening and medical care, negligence, carelessness, intentional misconduct, concealment, breach of duty, and violation of law by the defend ants, plaintiff has in the past and will in the future be re quired to expend large sums in the care and treatment of his in jury, and may require future hospitalisation. 23. The aforesaid injuries were caused, aggravated and en hanced by the negligence, carelessness, intentional conduct and concealment of the defendants, their agents, servants, workers and employees acting in the course and scope of their employment or agency, all to the injury and damage to the plaintiff. ....................... ....... . -7* NL00003627 24. Plaintiff was at all times up until February of 1985 unaware of the nature and cause of hie injuries or the causal relationship of those injuries to his overexposure to lead ar senic, cadmium, loud noises and other noxious substances within his work place. 25. Neither plaintiff eaployee nor plaintiff-wife could reasonably have discovered the nature and cause of plaintiff-em- ployee's injuries or the relationship between these injuries and his overexposure to toxins within the work place due to defend ants* misrepresentations and their intentional, wilful, wanton, reckless, or negligent, concealment of such information from plaintiff-eaployee and fro* plaintiff-wife and from appropriate state agencies. ^ 26. The nature end cause of plaintiff's injuries and the relationship between those injuries and his overexposure to tox ins within his work place was unknowableto plaintiff-employee and plaintiff-wife prior to February, 1985. 27. Plaintiffs could not have brought this action earlier than February 1, 1985, due to defendants' misrepresentations and concealment. This action is timely filed in view of the applica bility of the "discovery rule" to this case. 28. The negligence, carelessness and intentional conduct of defendants, their agents, employees and servants causing damage to plaintiff is as follows* NL 000039628 -8- COONT ONE (vs. Associated Lead, Inc.) 29. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allega tion contained in paragraph 1 to 28 inclusive of this Coaplaint, with the saae force and effect as if fully set forth and repeated herein. 30. On or about the year 1979, defendant Associated Lead, Inc., purchased the aforeaentioned secondary lead saelting and refining facility located at 2545Araaingo Avenue froa defendant NL Industries, Inc., its predecessor in interest. 31. At all tiaes aaterial hereto, froa the first date of his eaployaent to the date of his teraination, plaintiff was eaployed at the 2545 Araaingo Avenue lead facility. 32. Proa the tiae of its purchase in 1979 through 1980, aid subsequent thereto, defendant Associated was notified by state and federal authorities, aanageaent personnel and defendant aedical physicians that its eaployees in the lead facility were be ing overexposed to lead, arsenic, cadaiua, loud noises and other toxic substances and were aanifeating syaptoas of lead, heavy aetals poisoning and other cheaical poisoning and their related foras of illness and injury. 33. Prior to Associated's purchase of the facility, its predecessor in interest, NL Industries, had instituted a prograa whereby a aedical health practitioner would conduct periodic aedical exaainations for lead toxicity of each eaployee. 34. Upon inforaation and belief, after Associated's pur chase of the facility, defendant Associated entered into a conTM 9 NL 000039629 tractual relationship with defendant physicians Cor the purpose of continuing the periodic medical examinations to prevent lead arsenic, cadmium, loud noises and other toxicity in plaintiff. Knowledge of the nature and format of this contract is withinthe exclusive possession of Associated Lead. 35. The intentional and/or reckless misconduct of defendant Associated Lead consisted of the following* a. Failure to make the workplace safe from lead, heavy metals, dust, dirt, chemicals, noise and other toxic substances; b. Failure to warn the plaintiff of the danger of lead, arsenic, cadmium, dust, dirt, chemicals, noise and heavy metal toxicity from long-term exposure; c. Failure to inform the plaintiff of the symptoms of toxic long-term exposure to lead, arsenic, cadmium, dust, dir^, chemicals, noise and other toxic substances; d. Failure to warn the plaintiff of the danger of lead, arsenic, cadmium, and heavy metal toxicity being trans ferred to the employee's immediate family; e. Failure to inform the plaintiff of the long-term effects of lead, arsenic, cadmium and chemical poisoning once contracted; f-- Failure to inform the plaintiff that the safety measures being implemented and adhered to were not protecting the employees from lead poisoning, arsenic and cadmium poisoning or overexposure to other toxic elements; g. Failure to inform the plaintiff that the aedical health services being provided were not remedial and mere not -10- NL 000039630 protecting the plaintiff from lead poisoning, arsenic and cadaiua poisoning or overexposure to other toxic eleaents) h. Failure to warn theplaintiff that the safety gear and products being utilised were not protecting the plaintiff froa lead poisoning, arsenic and cadaiua poisoning or exposure to other toxic eleaentsi i. Representing to the plaintiff that strict adherence to the safety prograa and directives given with respect to the use of safety gear and aedical health serviceswould protect the plaintiff froa lead, arsenic, cadaiua and exposure to other toxic eleaents; j. Failure to infora the plaintiff that his high blood lead levels would resultin lead poisoning, kidney disease, renal failure, heart failure andrelated injuries; . r....... '? k. Failure to infora plaintiff that remedialaedical treataent was required to prevent or correct the ill effects be ing caused by his high blood lead levels; l. Failure to reaove plaintiff froa the highly toxic lead, arsenic, cadaiua and heavy aetal infested environment prior to the date when plaintiff was terainated; a. Failure to render proper health screening, aedical care and treatment to the plaintiff; n. Failing and/or refusing to act upon results of tests administered to eaployees and failing to follow prudent medical and safety procedures; o. Intentionally failing to inform plaintiff of his health condition; -11| NL 000039631 l p. Such other intentional acts and omissions as revealed by discovery in this case. 36. Plaintiff's injuries have been directly and/or proxi ately caused by defendants' intentional, wilful and wanton acts and omissions. Defendants' knowing concealment of plaintiff's illness has caused plaintiff to suffer severe injuries and/or have caused plaintiff to suffer enhanced injury and disability. WHEREFORE, plaintiff demands judgment against defendants on this Count in excess of Twenty Thousand Dollars ($20,000.00) in addition to interest and costs, an amount in excess of that re-. quired for compulsory arbitration. COPKT TWO (vs. Associated Lead) .1 37. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allega tion contained in paragraph 1 to 36 inclusive of this Complaint, with the same force and effect As if fully set forth and repeated herein. 38. Defendant Associated Lead deviated from accepted stand ards of operation for an industrialfacility by intentionally, wilfully, wantonly and, with reckless indifference, causing in jury to plaintiff by their: a. Failure to make the workplace safe from lead, arse nic, cadmium, heavy metals, dust, dirt, chemicals, noise and other toxic elements and vapors: b. Failura to warh the plaintiff of the danger of lead, arsenic, cadmium, dust, dirt, chemicals, noise and heavy metal toxicity from long-term exposure; -12- NL 000039632 c. Failure to inform the plaintiff of the symptoms of lead poisoning, arsenic and cadmium poisoning and other toxic poisoning caused by long-term exposure) d. Failure to warn the plaintiff of the danger of lead, arsenic, cadmium and other chemicaltoxicity being transferred to the employee's immediate family; e. Failure to inform the plaintiff of the long-term effects of lead, arsenic, cadmium and other chemical poisoning once contracted; f. Failure to inform the plaintiff that the safety measures being implemented and adhered to wore not protecting the employees from lead poisoning, arsenic and cadmium poisoning or overexposure to other toxic elements; g. Failure to inform the plaintiff that the medial health services were not remedial and were not protecting the plaintiff from lead poisoning, or overexposure to other toxic elements; h. Failure to warn the plaintiff that the safety gear and products being utilized were not protecting the plaintiff from lead poisoning, arsenic and cadmium or overexposure to other toxic elements; i. Failure to train plaintiff in the proper use and maintenance of the safety devices being provided; j. Representing to the plaintiff that strict adherence to the safety program and directives given with respect to the use of safety gear and medical health services would protect the plaintiff from lead poisoning, arsenic and cadmium poisoning and exposure to other toxic elements; -13- NL 000039633 k. Intentionally concealing from plaintiff that his high blood lead would result in lead poisoning, heavy metals poisoning, toxic effects of arsenic, kidney disease, renal failure and related injuries; l. Failure to inform plaintiff that remedial sedical treatment was required to prevent or correct the ill effects be ing caused by his high blood lead, and other chemical levels; m. Failure to remove plaintiff from the highly toxic lead, arsenic, cadmium and heavy metal infested environment prior to the date when plaintiff was rendered injured; n. Failure to render proper medical care and treatment to the plaintiff; o. Failure to provide plaintiff with adequate respira tory protection, medical screening and treatment and appropriate engineering controls to prevent plaintiff's daily overexposure to workplace toxins; p. Failure to adequately supervise the performance of defendant-physicians in the implementation of the medical regime and administration of t7*****1^ *o plsintiff; q. Intentional concealment of the injuries and dis abilities being incurred by plaintiff due to his overexposure to toxins within* the work environment; r. Such othfr intentional, wilful, wanton and reckless acts and omissions as are revealed by discovery. 38. Defendant, Associated Lead, knew or should have known of injury to plaintiff that would be caused by their refusal and/or failure to act incorrecting the dangerous work environ- 14- NL 000039634 t sent and by refusing and/or failing to adequately warn plaintiff, yet recklessly disregarded the consequences of such failure. 39. Plaintiff's injuries have been directly and proximately caused by defendants' intentional, wilful and wanton acts and oaissions. Defendants' knowing concealnent of plaintiff's illness has caused plaintiff's severe injuries and/or have caused plaintiff to suffer enhanced injury and disability. WHEREFORE, plaintiff demands punitive damages on this Count in excess of Twenty Thousand Dollars ($20,000.00) in addition to interest and costs, an amount in excess of that required for com pulsory arbitration. COURT THREE (vs. Associated Lead) 40. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every alleg^~ tion contained in paragraphs 1 to 39 inclusive of this Complaint, with the same force and effect as if fully set forth and repeated herein. 41. Defendant Associated Lead had an implied contractual obligation to plaintiff to assure that plaintiff's health would not be adversely affected by virtue of plaintiff's work with, and exposure to, lead, arsenic, cadmium, loud noises and other toxic elements. 42. Defendant Associate^ represented to plaintiff that a proper and adequate medical regime would be maintained pursuant to defendant's implied contractual obligation. 43. Associate^ Lead knew that if they did not properly per form its implied contract, plaintiff would incur injuries includ- -15| NL 000039635 ing but not Halted to those set forth in Paragraph 21 of this Complaint. 44. Defendant Associated Lead has breached this contractual obligation# causing plaintiff to be harmed by such breach. 45. Plaintiff's injuries have been directly and proximately caused by defendant# Associated Lead's breach of contract. WHEREFORE# plaintiff demands judgment against defendants on this Count in excess of Twenty Thousand Dollars ($20#000.00) in addition to interest and costs# an amount in excess of that re quired for compulsory arbitration. COPMT POOR (vs. Mine Safety Appliances Co.) 46. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every alle^tion contained in paragraphs 1 to 45 inclusive of this Complaint# with the same force and effect as if fully set forth and repeated herein. 47. At all times relevant hereto# defendant Mine Safety Ap pliances Company was in the business of designing# producing, manufacturing# vending and distributing industrial safety gear and devices for use in the workplace and for the stated purpose of eliminating or reducing to safe working levels employee expos ure to air pollution caused by toxic substances. 48. At all times relevant hereto, defendant Mine Safety Ap pliances Company produced and distributed to defendant, Asso ciated Lead# and their predecessors in Interest# safety gear, products and devices# for use at the subject facility at 2545 Aramingo Avenue# Philadelphia# PA. 16 NL 000039636 49. The intended purpose for the purchase and sale of the safety gear, products and devices aforementioned was to eliminate or reduce the exposure to lead, arsenic, cadmium dusts and other toxic substances to a safe working level. 50. Among the subject gear, products and devices sold for use at the 2545 Aramingo Avenue were respirators, safety glasses, face shields, helmets, exhaust hoods, movable ventilating ducts, and emission control devices for the receival and reclamation of heavy metal dust in said gear, their attachments and accessories. 51. During the course of his use and reliance on the afore mentioned gear, products and devices as intended, plaintiff con tracted lead, arsenic, cadmium and other chemical poisoning, kid ney disease, renal failure, heart failure and related injuries by reason of the breach of warranty, negligence and other tortious conduct of defendant Mine Safety Appliances Company. 52. The breach of warranty, negligence and other tortious conduct consisted in and of the gear, products and devices when sold, each being dangerous and defective; being not merchantable; being unfit for its intended ordinary use; being unfit for its special and specific use; and in other ways being dangerous and defective and each product, gear object, and device did not con form to its-description and did not perform in the manner de scribed nor was it designed properly to protect the plaintiff from overexposure to lead, and other toxic elements within the work environment. 53. Defendant, with knowledge of the actual or probable use of the equipment as aforesaid, failed to give adequate or proper -17- NL 000039637 warning of tba limitation* in the use of it* products and was otherwise negligent and careless in providing information and in structions in the use thereof, and misrepresented the effective ness of the use of its products thereby rendering the same dang erous and defective when used in a manner within the reasonable product use expectations. 54. Defendant Nine Safety knew or should have known that its breach of warranty, negligence and other tortious conduct, and that such acts, oaiissions and breaches would cause those in juries to plaintiff outlined in Paragraph 21 of this Complaint. WHEREFORE, plaintiff demands judgment against defendant Nine Safety Appliances Company on this Count for an amount in excess of Twenty Thousand Dollars ($20,000.00) in addition to interest and costs, an amount in excess of that required for compulsory arbitration. COPNT PIVE (vs. Nine Safety Appliances Company) 55. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allega tion contained in paragraphs 1 to 54 inclusive of this Complaint, with the same force and effect ai if fully set forth and repeated herein. 56. Defendant Nine Safety Appliances Company by its agents, servants, workmen, and employees were negligent and careless in the design, construction, manufacture and sale of each of the aforementioned gear, products and devices, thus placing into com merce an industrial safety device that was dangerous and defec tive as averred herein. i NL 000039638 57. Each product, piece of safety gear and device was dan gerous and defective and negligently and carelessly designed and aanufactured in.that: a. It was not provided with proper and adequate warn ings in its use, the contraindications to its use, and the effec tive liaitations of its use; b. It was not fit for its intended use or purpose; c. It was not provided with proper guards and protec tive devices; d. It was defective in that it aalfunctioned or func tioned iaproperly; e. It was unreasonably dangerous for its intended use; f. It was not equipped or provided with ainiaal safety devices and appliances; '? g. It did not confora to laws, rules and regulations of the United States, the Coaaonwealth of Pennsylvania, the City of Philadelphia or the agencies or departaents thereof; h. It was otherwise dangerous and defective and de fendant was otherwise careless and negligent. 58. Defendant Mine Safety Appliances Coapany is strictly liable to plaintiff and is liable to plaintiff pursuant to S402A of the Restateaent of Torts 2nd in that each product, piece of safety gear and device was defective when sold and created the unreasonable risk of injury or hara to the foreseeable users thereof, and was negligently and carelessly designed and aanu factured. -19- NL 000039639 WHEREFORE, plaintiff demands judgment from defendant. Mine Safety Appliances Company, on this Count for an amount in excess of Twenty Thousand Dollars ($20,000.00) in addition to interest and costs, an amount in excess of that required for compulsory arbitration. COPNT SIX (vs. Arthur Stiffel, M.D., A.M. Aberico, M.D., Claude P. Brown, M.D., Francis J.A. Renzulli, M.D.) 59. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allega tion contained in paragraphs 1 to 58 inclusive of this Complaint, with the same force and effect as if fully set forth and repeated herein. 59. At all times material hereto, the defendants were to initiate, implement and supervise a medical management program whereby plaintiff would be protected from and educated to the po tential dangers inherent in a lead smelting and refinery facility. 60. Pursuant to their duties, defendant-physicians examined and tested plaintiff to determine if he was ill by reason of his exposure to the toxic elements within the workplace. 61. In furtherance of their duties as medical health prac titioners, defendants undertook to treat the plaintiff for lead, arsenic, cadmium, loud noises and other chemical and other heavy metal toxicity. 62. The aforementioned treatments consisted of chelation therapy, either intravenously or more often intramuscularly or orally, whenever lead levels were noted to be elevated. 63. At all times material hereto, the negligent and/or 20 NL 000039640 reckless performance of defendants' medical -ctivities fell far below the acceptable standards of practice as defined by the med ical community at large and, specifically, by the occupational medicine specialists within the medical community. 64. Defendants breached their duty to provide proper and adequate care, medical services, health screening and management and was negligent and careless in the following manner: a. Failure to warn the plaintiff of the danger of lead, arsenic, cadmium, heavy metal, loud noises and other chemical toxicity from long-term exposure; b. Failure to inform the plaintiff of the symptoms of lead, arsenic, cadmium and other chemical poisoning caused by long-term exposure; c. Failure to warn the plaintiff of the danger (of lead, arsenic, cadmium and other chemical toxicity being trans ferred to the plaintiff's immediate family; d. Failure to inform the plaintiff of the long-term effects of lead, arsenic, cadmium and other chemical poisoning once contracted; e. Failure to inform the plaintiff thait the safety measures being implemented and adhered to were not protecting the plaintiff from lead, arsenic, cadmium and other chemical poison ing; f. Failure to inform the plaintiff that the medical health services being provided were not remedial and were not protecting the plaintiff from lead, arsenic, cadmium and other chemical poisoning; -21- NL 000039641 g. Failure to warn the plaintiff that the safety gear and products being utilised were not protecting the plaintiff froa lead, arsenic, cadaiua and other cheaical poisoning or over exposure to other toxic substances; h. Representing to the plaintiff that strict adherence to the safety program and directives given with respect to the use of safety gear and aedical health services would protect the plaintiff froa lead, arsenic, cadaiua and other cheaical poison ing; i. Failure to infora the plaintiff that his consist ently high blood lead and other cheaical levels would result in lead poisoning, kidney disease, renal failure, heart failure and related injuries; .1 j. Failure to infora plaintff that reaedial medical treatment was required to prevent or correct the ill effects being caused by his high blood lead and other cheaical levels; k. Failure to remove plaintiff froa the highly toxic lead, arsenic, cadaiua, heavy aetal and other cheaical infested environment prior to the date when plaintiff was terminated; l. Prescribing, controlling and adainistration of med ications was improper and/or inadequate, resulting in toxic lead concentrations; . a. Failure and/or refusal to prescribe and administer the proper aedications to plaintiff; n. Administering medication contraindicated by plain tiff's condition; o. Improper and inadequate aedical care and treatment; -22- NL 000039642 p. Improper and inadequate record keeping; q. Pailure to advise of the risks of the limited pro cedure, denying to plaintiff an informed consent; r. Failure and/or refusal to exercise due care under the circumstances in the care and treatment of plaintiff; s. Pailure and/or refusal to render proper and ade quate care and treatment; t. Pailure and/or refusal to properly evaluate the seriousness of plaintiff's condition and failing to take timely remedial action; u. Improper administration of medication, causing an increase of toxic lead, arsenic, cadmium concentration beyond that which would have Occurred had the medication not been Ad ministered; v. Improper and incorrect diagnosis of plaintiff's condition; w. Pailure to obtain an additional independent medical opinion for a period of years prior to obtaining additional med ical evaluations; x. Pailure to report the high lead levels being found in plaintiff..to the proper authorities including, but not limited to, the Philadelphia Health Department, the Department of Health and Welfare for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Labor and Industries for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the O.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfere, the Q.S. Public Health Service and the D.S. Occupational Safety and Health Admin istration; -23- NL 000039643 I y. Such other negligent end/or reckless acts and omis sions as revealed by discovery in this case. 65. Defendants knew that failure to coaply with standards in the medical profession, and in particular, the occupational medicine industry would result in plaintiff acquiring the di seases and conditions set forth in Paragraph 21 of this Coaplaint. WHEREFORE, plaintiff deaands judgaent against aedical health practitioner defendants on this Count in excess of Twenty Thousand Dollars ($20,000.00) in addition to interest and costs, an aaount in excess of that required for coapulsory arbitration. COOHT SEVER (vs. Arthur Stiffel, M.D., A.M. Aberico, M.D., Claude P. Brown, M.D., Francis J.A. Renxulli, M.D.) ( 66. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allega tion contained in paragraphs 1 to 65 inclusive of this Complaint, with the same force and effect as if fully set forth and repeated herein. 67. At all times material hereto, the examinations, testing and treatment performed by defendant were accomplished without an informed consent from the plaintiff. 68. At. all times material hereto, the defendant failed to disclose to plaintiff his need for medical care and treatment and the risks of exposure to a toxic lead, arsenic and cadmium envir onment when plaintiff was already exhibiting the symptoms of in jury and disease due to lead, cadmium, arsenic and loud noise exposure, and exposure to other toxic substances. -24- NL 000039644 WHEREFORE, plaintiff demands judgment against medical health practitioner defendants on this Count in excess of Twenty Thousand Dollars ($20,000.00) in addition to interest and costs, an amount in excess of that required for compulsory arbitration. COPWT BIGHT (vs. Arthur Stiffel, M.D., A.M. Aberico, N.D., Claude P. Brown, M.D., Francis J.A. Renxulli, M.D.) 9. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 to 68 inclusive of this Complaint, with the saae force and effect as if fully set forth and repeated herein: 70. Defendants asdics! health practitioners knowingly, wil fully, wantonly and recklessly inflicted injury upon plaintiff by their: T a. Failure to war:: the plaintiff of the danger of lead, arsenic, cadaiua, heavy aetal, loud noises and other chemical toxicity froa long-term exposure; b. Failure to infora the plaintiff of the symptoms of lead, arsenic, cadaiua and other chemical poisoning caused by long-term exposure; c. Failure to warn the plaintiff of the danger of lead, arsenic, cadaiua and other cheaical toxicity being trans ferred to the plaintiff*s iaaediate faaily; d. Failure to infora the plaintiff of the long-term effects of lead, arsenic, cadaiua and other cheaical poisoning once contracted; e. Failure to infora the plaintiff that the safety aeasures being iapleaented and adhered to were not protecting the 25- NL 000039645 plaintiff from load, arsenic, cadmium and other chemical poison ing and overexposure to other toxic elements; f. Failure to inform the plaintiff that the medical health services being provided were not remedial and were not protecting the plaintiff from lead, arsenic and cadmium poisoning and overexposure to other toxic elements; g. Failure to warn the plaintiff that the safety gear and products being utilized were not protecting the plaintiff from lead, arsenic and cadmium poisoning and overexposure to other toxic elements; h. Representing to the plaintiff that strict adherence to the safety program and directives given with respect to the use of safety gear and medical health services would protect (he plaintiff from lead, arsenic and cadmium poisoning and over-ex posure to other toxic elements; i. Intentionally concealing from plaintiff that his consistently high blood lead, arsenic, cadmium and other chemical levels would result in lead poisoning, kidney disease, renal failure, heart failure and related Injuries; j. Failure to inform plaintiff that remedial medical treatment was required to prevent or correct the ill effects be ing caused by consistently high blood lead and other chemical levels; k. Failure to remove plaintiff from the highly toxic lead, arsenic, cadmium, heavy metal and other chemical infested environment prior to the date when plaintiff was terminated; -26- NL 000039646 l. Failing to prescribe and administer the proper med ications to plaintiff; m. Failure to exercise due care under the circum stances in the care and treatment of plaintiff; n. Failure to report the high lead and other chemical levels being found in plaintiff to the proper authorities includ ing, but not limited to, the Philadelphia Health Department, the Department of Health and Welfare for the Commonwealth of Penn sylvania, the Department of Labor and Industries for the Com monwealth of Pennsylvania, the U.S. Department of Health, Edu cation and Welfare, the U.S. Public Health Service and the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration. 71. Defendants knew or should have known of the injury to plaintiff that would be caused by their failure to properly ^ad minister to and adequately inform plaintiff of plaintiff's in juries, yet recklessly disregarded the consequences of such failure. 72. Defendants intentionally, wilfully, and wantonly aban doned plaintiff and his co-workers after knowingly concealing plaintiff's injuries from him. Plaintiff's injuries have been directly and proximately caused, aggravated and seriously enhanced by ..defendant s' concealment. WHEREFORE, plaintiff demands punitive damages against med ical health practitioners on this Count in excess of Twenty Thou sand Dollars ($20,000.00) in addition to interests and costs, an amount in excess of that required for compulsory arbitration. 27" NL 000039647 COOWT WISE (vs. Arthur Stiffel, M.D., A.M. Aberico, M.D., Claude P. Brown, M.D., Francis j .a . Renzulli, m.d .) 73. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allega tion contained in paragraphs 1 to 72 inclusive of this Complaint, with the sane force and effect as if fully set forth and repeated herein. 74. Defendants were the promisors of a contract with plain tiff's employer to provide medical supervision and treatment for plaintiff to assure that plaintiff's health was maintained in view of his proximity to lead, arsenic, cadmium and other toxic substances within the workplace. Knowledge of the nature and format of this contract is within the exclusive possession of defendants. ^ 75. Defendants intended, by this contract, that plaintiff benefit from the medical supervision and treatment provided by virtue of this contract. 76. Plaintiff's employer intended, as the promisee of this contract, that plaintiff benefit from the medical supervision and treatment provided by virtue of this contract* 77. Defendants in their capacity as independent contractors and promisors to this contract, breached their duty to properly and adequately perform.the contracted for medical supervision and treatment. 78. Plaintiff, as third-party intended beneficiary, has been injured by defendants' breach of contract. WHEREFORE, plaintiff demands judgment against medical health practitioner defendants on this Count in excess of Twenty Thous -28- NL 000039648 and Dollars ($20,000.00) in addition to interact and costs, an amount in excess of that required for compulsory arbitration. COPHT TEH (vs. Unknown Blood Testing and Other Health Testing facilities) 79. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allega tion contained in paragraphs 1 to 78 inclusive of this complaint, with the same force and effect as if fully set forth and repeated herein. 80. Upon information and belief, defendant medical doctors used a blood testing facility to determine blood lead levels and other chemical levels, of plaintiff and his co-workers, and in providing other health testing facilities for plaintiff and his co-workers. ^ 81. Plaintiff is unaware of the identity of these facili ties, and their identifies should be revealed during discovery. 82. Upon information and belief, at relevant times material hereto, defendant medical doctors utilized the facilities of the unnamed testing facilities to perform the medical health services aforementioned in the preceding paragraphs. 83. During the time aforesaid, the employees, agents and servants or* the unnamed testing facilities defendants, acting within the scope of their duties to attend to plaintiff and ren der assistance in the analysis, diagnosis, care and treatment of the industrial diseases and injuries aforementioned carelessly, wrongfully and negligently: a. Failed to supervise the conduct and activities of its agents, employees and servants in their handling of blood, -29- NL 000039649 urine and tissue samples, laboratory specimens, utensils and in struments with respect to plaintiff and his co-workers; b. Failed to supervise the conduct of its professional medical staff in their providing services to defendant medical doctors under the circumstances mentioned in the preceding para graphs of this Complaint; c. Failed to conduct proper and adequate tests to de termine the etiology and severity of plaintiff's condition of toxicity; d. Failed to consult with qualified specialists in the management and analysis of plaintiff's case; e. Failed to act with reasonable care in the selection of its employees and staff members, and failed to screen the de fendant medical doctors before permitting them to make use of its laboratory facilities; f. Failed to warn the plaintiff of the danger of lead, arsenic, cadmium, heavy metal, loud noises and other chemical toxicity from long-term exposure; g. Failed to inform the plaintiff of the symptoms of lead, arsenic, cadmium and other chemical poisoning caused by long-term exposure; h. Failed to warn plaintiff of the danger of lead, ar senic, cadmium and other chemical toxicity being transferred to the employee's immediate family; i. Failed to inform plaintiff of the long-term effects of lead, arsenic, cadmium and chemical poisoning once contracted; 30 NL 000039650 j. Failed to inform the plaintiff that the safety measures being implemented and adhered to at the smelting facil ity were not protecting the plaintiff from lead, arsenic, cadmium poisoning and overexposure to other toxic substances) k. Failed to inform plaintiff that the medical health services being provided were not remedial and were not protecting the plaintiff from lead, arsenic, cadmium poisoning and overex posure to other toxic elements; l. Failed to warn plaintiff that the safety gear and products being utilised at the smelting facility were not protecting the employees from lead, arsenic, cadmium poisoning and overexposure to other toxic elements; m. Failed to inform plaintiff that his consistently high blood lead and other chemical levels would result in l^ad and other chemical poisoning, kidney disease, renal failure, heart failure and related injuries; n. Failed to inform plaintiff that remedial medical treatment was required to prevent or correct the ill effects being caused by high blood lead and chemical levels; o. Failed to advise removal of plaintiff from the highly toxic lead, heavy metal and other chemical infested en vironment prior to the date when plaintiff was terminated; p. Failed to prescribe, control and administer proper medications resulting in toxic lead concentrations; q. Failed to prescribe and administer the proper med ications to plaintiff; -31 NL 000039651 r. Provided medication contraindicated to plaintiff's condition; a. Improper and inadequate medical care and treatment; t. Improper and inadequate record keeping; u. Failed to advise of the risks of the limited pro cedure, denying to plaintiff an informed consent; v. Failed to exercise due care under the circumstances in the care and treatment of plaintiff; w. Failed to properly evaluate the seriousness of plaintiff's condition and failed to take timely remedial action; x. Improper administration of medication causing an increase of toxic lead concentration beyond that which would have occurred had the medication not been administered; y. Improper and incorrect diagnosis of plaintiff's condition; z. Failure to report the high lead and other chemical levels being found in plaintiff and his co-workers to the proper authorities including, but not limited to, the Philadelphia Health Department; the Department of Health and Welfare for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; the Department of Labor and Indus try for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare; the U.S. Public Health Service; the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration; aa. Such other tortious acts and omissions as are revealed by discovery in this case. 84. Defendant laboratory knew or should have known of the inadequate health screening, medical services and treatments -32- NL 000039652 being administered by defendant medical doctors yet negligently failed to correct the situation and to advise the proper public authorities and plaintiff of the injuries and illnesses he was incurring within the workplace. WHEREFORE, plaintiff demands judgment against the unnamed health testing facilities on this Count in excess of Twenty Thou sand Dollars ($20,000.00) in addition to interest and costs, an amount in excess of that required for compulaory arbitration. COUNT ELEVEN (vs. Sidney Lerner, M.D.) 85. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 to 84 inclusive of this Complaint, with the same force and effect as if fully set forth and repeated herein. 86. At all times material hereto, defendant Sidney Lerner, M.D., examined and tested the plaintiff to determine if he was toxic to lead and/or other chemical or heavy metals. 87. The defendant Sidney Lerner, M.D., was to monitor and safeguard the health and welfare of the plaintiff who was being subjected to toxic lead, arsenic, cadmium, heavy metal and chem ical exposure. 88. Defendant Sidney Lerner, M.D., supervised and conducted medical hygiene studies of plaintiff and others at the subject facility specifically for lead, arsenic, cadmium, other chemical and other heavy metal intoxication. 89. Defendant's function* included the initiation and su pervision of medical management programs by which plaintiff was -33- NL 000039653 to be protected from and educated to the potential dangers inher ent in a lead smelting and refining facility. 90. Defendant Sidney Lerner, M.D., breached his duty to provide proper and adequate care, medical service, health screen ing and management and was negligent and careless in the following manner: a. Failure to warn the plaintiff of the danger of lead, arsenic, cadmium, heavy metal, loud noises and other chemical toxicity from long-term exposure; b. Failure to inform the plaintiff of the symptoms of lead, arsenic, cadmium and other chemical poisoning caused by long-term exposure; c. Failure to warn the plaintiff of the danger of lead, arsenic, cadmium and other chemical toxicity being trans ferred to the plaintiff's immediate family; d. Failure to Inform the plaintiff of the long-term effects of lead, arsenic, cadmium and other chemical poisoning once contracted; e. Failure to inform the plaintiff that the safety measures being implemented and adhered to were not protecting the plaintiff from lead, arsenic, cadmium poisoning or overexposure to other toxic substances; f. Failure to inform the plaintiff that the medical health services being provided were not remedial and were not protecting the plaintiff from lead, arsenic, cadmium poisoning or overexposure to other toxic substances; 34 NL. 000039654 g. Failure to warn the plaintiff that the aafety gear and products being utilised were not protecting the plaintiff froa lead* arsenic, cadaiua poisoning or overexposure to other toxic substances; h. Representing to the plaintiff that strict adherence to the safety program and directives given with respect to the use of safety gear and aedical health aervices would protect the plaintiff froa lead, arsenic, cadaiua poisoning or overexposure to other toxic substances; i. Failure to infora the plaintiff that his consistently high blood lead or other chemical levels would result in lead poisoning, kidney disease, renal failure, heart failure and related injuries; j. Failure to infora plaintiff that remedial medieval treatment was required to prevent or correct the ill effects be ing caused by consistently high blood lead and other chemical levels; k. Failure to remove plaintiff from the highly toxic lead, arsenic, cadmium, heavy metal and other chemical infested environment prior to the date when plaintiff was terminated; l. Prescribing, controlling and administration of med ications warn inadequate and ixtproper, resulting in toxic lead, arsenic, cadaiua and other chemical concentrations; a. Failure to prescribe and administer the proper med ications to plaintiff; n. Administering medication contraindicated by plain tiff's condition; NL 000039655 o . Improper and inadequate medical care and treatment; p. Improper and inadequate record keeping; q. Failure to advise of the risks of the limited pro cedure, denying to plaintiff an informed consent; r. Failure to exercise due care under the circum stances in the care and treatment of plaintiff; s. Failure to render proper and adequate care and treatment; t. Failure to properly evaluate the seriousness of plaintiff's condition and failing to take timely remedial action; u. Improper administration of medication causing an increase of toxic lead, arsenic, cadmium and other chemical concentrations beyond that which would have occurred had the medication not been administered; v. Improperand incorrect diagnosis of plaintiff's condition; w. Failure to obtain an additional, independent med ical opinion for a period of years prior to obtaining additional medical evaluations; x. Failure to report the high lead and other chemical levels being found in plaintiff to the proper authorities includ ing, but not- limited to, the Philadelphia Health Department, the Department of Health and Welfare for the Commonwealth of Pennsyl vania, the Department of Labor and Industry for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the Q.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, the D.S. Public Health Service and the Q.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration; -36l NL 000039656 y. Such other tortious and/or negligent acts and omissions as revealed by discovery in this case. 91. At all' times material hereto, the negligent performance of defendant's aedical activities fell far below the acceptable standards of practice as defined by the aedical coaaunity at large and, specifically, by the occupational aedlcine specialists within the aedical coaaunity. WHEREFORE, plaintiff demands judgment against defendant Sid ney Lerner, M.D., on this Count in excess of Twenty Thousand Dol lars ($20,000.00) in addition to interest and costs, an aaount in excess of that required for coapulsory arbitration. COUNT TWELVE (vs. Sidney Lerner, M.D.) ,1 92. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allega tion contained in paragraphs 1 to 91 inclusive of this Complaint, with the same force and effect as if fully set forth and repeated herein. 93. At all times material hereto, the examinations, testing and treatment performed and/or ordered by defendant were accom plished without an informed consent from the plaintiff. 94. At all tiaes aaterial hereto, the defendant failed to disclose to plaintiff his need for aedical care and treatment, and the risks of exposure to a toxic environment when plaintiff was already exhibiting the symptoms of injury and disease due to his exposure to lead, arsenic, cadmium, loud noises and other toxic elements. -37 NL 000039657 WHEREFORE, plaintiff demand* judgment against Sidney Lerner, M.D., on this Count in excess of Twenty Thousand Dollars ($20,000.00), in addition to interest and costs, an amount in excess of that required for compulsory arbitration. COUNT THIRTEEN (vs. Sidney Lerner, M.D.) 95. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allega tion contained in paragraphs 1 to 94 inclusive of this Complaint, with the same force and effect as if fully set forth and repeated herein. 96. Defendant Sidney Lerner, M.D., knowingly, wilfully, wantonly and recklessly inflicted injury upon plaintiff by his: a. Failure to advise, instruct and inform that tjhe workplace be made safe from lead, arsenic, cadmium, loud noises, other heavy metal and chemical toxicity; b. Failure to warn plaintiff of the danger of lead, arsenic, cadmium and other chemical poisoning caused by long-term exposure; c. Failure to inform plaintiff of the symptoms of lead, arsenic, cadmium and other chemical poisoning caused by long-term exposure; d. Failure to warn plaintiff of the danger of lead, arsenic, cadmium and other chemical toxicity being transferred to his immediate family; e. Failure to inform plaintiff of the long-term effects of lead, arsenic, cadmium and other chemical poisoning once contracted; 38 NL 000039658 f. Failure to infora plaintiff that the safety measurea being implemented and adhered to were not protecting the employees from lead, arsenic, cadmium poisoning and overexposure to other toxic elements; g. Failure to inform plaintiff that the medical health services being provided were not remedial and were not protecting the employees from lead, arsenic, cadmium poisoning and overex posure to other toxic elements; h. Failure to warn plaintiff that the safety gear and products being utilised were not protecting the plaintiff from lead, arsenic, cadmium poisoning, loud noises and overexposure to other toxic elements; i. Intentionally concealing from plaintiff that lifts high blood lead levels would result in lead, arsenic, cadmium poisoning, kidney disease, renal failure, heart failure and re lated injuries; j. Failure to inform plaintiff that remedial medical treatment was required to prevent or correct the ill effects being caused by high blood lead, and other chemical levels; k. Failure to remove plaintiff from the highly toxic lead, arsenic, cadmium heavy metal and other chemical infested environment prior to the date when plaintiff was terminated; l. Failure to advise of the risks of the limited med ical procedures being employed, denying to plaintiff an informed consent; m. Acquiescing to the improper administration of med ication causing an increase of toxic lead, arsenic, cadmium and 39 NL 000039659 other chemical cc sntration beyond that whi would have occur red had the medication not been administered; n. Failure to report the high lead, arsenic, cadmium and other chemical levels being found in plaintiff and his co workers to the proper authorities including, but not limited to, the Philadelphia Health Department; the Department of Health and Welfare for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; the Department of Labor and Industry for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; the D.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, the U.S. Public Health Service and the D.S. Occupational Safety and Health Admin istration. 97. Defendant Sidney Lerner, M.D., knew or should have known of the injury to plaintiff that would be caused by his failure to properly administer to and adequately inform plaintiff of plaintiff's injuries, yet recklessly disregarded the corilaequences of such failure. 98. Defendant intentionally, wilfully and wantonly aban doned plaintiff and his co-workers after knowingly concealing plaintiff's injuries from him. 99. Defendant's intentional, wilful, wanton and reckless conduct is the direct and proximate cause of plaintiff's injuries and disabilities. Defendant's knowing concealment of plaintiff's illness has caused plaintiff to suffer enhanced injury and dis ability. WHEREFORE, plaintiff demands punitive damages on this Count in excess of Twenty Thousand Dollars ($20,000.00) in addition to interest and costs, an amount in excess of that required for com pulsory arbitration. -40- NL 000039660 COUNT FOURTEEN (vs. Sidney Lerner, M.D.) 100. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allega tion contained in paragraphs 1 to 99 inclusive of this Complaint, with the same force and effect as if fully set forth and repeated herein. 101. Defendant Sidney Lerner, M.D., was the promisor of a contract to provide medical testing and treatment for plaintiff to assure that plaintiff's health was maintained in view of his proximity to lead, arsenic, cadmium, loud noises and other toxic elements within the workplace. Knowledge of the nature and format of this contract is within the exclusive possession of defendant. 102. Defendant Sidney Lerner, N.D., intended, by this con tract, that plaintiff benefit from medical tests and treatment provided by virtue of this contract. 103. Plaintiff's employer intended, as the promisee of this contract, that plaintiff benefit from the medical supervision and treatment provided by virtue of this contract. 104. Defendant Sidney Lerner, M.D., in his capacity as in dependent contractor and promisor to this contract, breached his duty to properly and adequately perform the contracted for med ical testing and treatment. 105. Defendant Sidney Lerner, M.D. knew or should have known of the consequences of his failure to properly perform his contract, namely that plaintiff would contract the conditions and diseases set forth at Paragraph 21 of this Complaint. -41- NL 000039661 106. Plaintiff, as third-party intended beneficiary, has been injured by defendant's breach of contract. WHEREFORE, plaintiff demands judgment against defendant Sidney Lerner, M.D., on this Count in excess of Twenty Thousand Dollars ($20,000.00) in addition to interest and costs, an amount in excess of that required for compulsory arbitration. COUNT FIFTEEN (vs. N.L. Industries, National Lead Industries, National Lead Industries, Pigment a Lead Division National Lead Company) 107. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allega tion contained in paragraphs 1 to 106 inclusive of this Com plaint, with the same force and effect as if fully set forth and repeated herein. ^ 108. N.L. Industries, National Lead Industries, National Lead Industries, Pigment and Lead Division, National Lead Company owned and operated the aforementioned secondary lead smelting and refining facility located at 2543 Aramingo Avenue until on or about the year 1979, when its successor in interest, defendant Associated Lead purchased the facility. 109. At all times material hereto, from the first date of his employment until his termination, plaintiff was employed at the 2545 Aramingo Avenue facility. 110. From the time of its purchase of the subject facility on or about the year 1963, and continuing thereafter through 1979, and afterward, defendants N.L. Industries, National Lead Industries, National Lead Industries, Pigment and Chemical Di vision, National Lead Company were notified by its management * -42NL 000039662 personnel and physicians that its employees in the lead facility were being overexposed to lead, arsenic, cadmium, loud noises and other toxic substances and were manifesting symptoms of lead, heavy metals and chemical poisoning and their related illnesses and injuries. 111. Defendant N.L. Industries, National Lead Industries, National Lead Industries, Pigment and Chemical Division, National Lead Company on or about the year 1963, had instituted a program whereby a medical health practitioner would conduct periodic med ical examinations for lead, arsenic, cadmium heavy metal, loud noises and other chemical toxicity for each employee. 112. The reckless and/or intentional conduct of defendant N.L. Industries, National Lead Industries, National Lead Indus tries, Pigment and Chemical Division, National Lead Company consisted of the following: a. Failure to make the workplace safe from arsenic, lead, heavy metal and chemical toxicity; b. Failure to warn the plaintiff of the danger of lead, arsenic, cadmium heavy metal and chemical toxicity from long-term exposure; c. Failure to inform the plaintiff of the symptoms of lead, arsenic, cadmium and other chemical poisoning caused by long-term exposure; d. Failure to warn the plaintiff of the danger of lead, arsenic, cadmium, loud noises and other chemical toxicity being transferred to hisimmediate family; -43- NL 000039663 * Failure to infora the plaintiff of the long-term effects of lead, arsenic, cadmium and other chemical poisoning once contracted; f. Failure to inform the plaintiff that the safety measures being implemented and adhered to were not protecting him from lead, arsenic, cadmium poisoning and overexposure to other toxic elements; g. Failure to inform the plaintiff that the medical health services were not remedial and were not protecting the plaintiff from lead, arsenic, cadmium poisoning and overexposure to other toxic elements; h. Failure to warn the plaintiff that the safety gear and products being utilized were not protecting the plaintiff from lead, arsenic, cadmium poisoning and overexposure to other toxic elements; i. Representing to the plaintiff that strict adherence to the safety program and directives given with respect to the use of safety gear and medical health services would protect the plaintiff from lead, arsenic, cadmium poisoning and overexposure to other toxic elements; j- Failure to inform the plaintiff that his high blood lead levels would result in lead, arsenic, cadmium and other chemical poisoning, kidney disease, renal failure, heart failure and related injuries; k. Failure to inform plaintiff that remedial medical treatment was required to prevent or correct the ill effects be ing caused by high blood lead and other chemical levels; 44 NL 000039664 1. Failure to remove plaintiff from the highly toxic lead, arsenic, cadmium heavy metal and other chemical Infested environment prior to the date when plaintiff was terminated; Failure to render proper medical care and treatment to the plaintiffs; n. Such other intentional acts and omissions as revealed by discovery in this case. WHEREFORE, plaintiff demands judgment against defendants on this Count in excess of Twenty Thousand Dollars ($20,000.00) in addition to interest and costs, an amount in excess of that re quired for compulsory arbitration. COPNT SIXTEEN (vs. N.L. Industries, National Lead Industries, National Lead Industries, Pigment and Chemical Division, National Lead Company) | 113. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 to 112 of this Complaint, with the same force and effect as if fully set forth and repeated herein. 114. Defendant N.L. Industries, National Lead Industries, National Lead Industries, Pigment and Chemical Division, National Lead Company deviated from accepted standards of operation for an industrial facility by intentionally, wilfully, wantonly and, with reckless indifference, causing injury to plaintiff by its: a. Failure to make the workplace safe from lead, other chemical and other heavy metal toxicity; b. Failure to warn the plaintiff of the danger of lead, arsenic, cadmium, loud noises, other chemical and heavy metal toxicity from long-term exposure; -45 NL 000039665 c. Failure to infora the plaintiff of the symptoms of lead, arsenic, cadmium and other chemical poisoning caused by long-term exposure; d. Failure to warn the plaintiff of the danger of lead, arsenic, cadmium and other chemical toxicity being trans ferred to his immediate family; e. Failure to inform the plaintiff of the long-term effects of lead, arsenic, cadmium and other chemical poisoning once contracted; f. Failure to inform the plaintiff that the safety measures being implemented and adhered to were not protecting him from lead, arsenic, cadmium poisoning and overexposure to other toxic elements; g. Failure to inform the plaintiff that the medical health services were not remedial and were not protecting the plaintiff from lead, arsenic, cadmium poisoning and overexposure to other toxic elements; h. Failure to warn the plaintiff that the safety gear and products being utilised were not protecting the plaintiff from lead, arsenic, cadmium poisoning and overexposure to other toxic elements; i.' Failure to train plaintiff in the proper use and maintenance of the safety devices being provided; j. Representing to the plaintiff that strict adherence to the safety program and directives given with respect to the use of safety gear and medical health services would protect the plaintiff from lead, arsenic, cadmium poisoning and overexposure to other toxic elements; -46- NL 000039666 k. Intentionally concealing from plaintiff that his high blood lead and other chemical levels would result in lead, arsenic, cadmium poisoning, kidney disease, renal failure, heart failure and related injuries; l. Failure to inform plaintiff that remedial medical treatment was required to prevent or correct the ill effects be ing caused by high blood lead and other chemical levels; m. Failure to remove plaintiff from the highly toxic lead, arsenic, cadmium other chemical and heavy metal infested environment prior to the date when plaintiff was terminated; n. Failure to render proper medical care and treatment to the plaintiff; o. Failure to provide plaintiff with adequate respiratory protection, medical screening and treatment and appropriate engineering controls to prevent plaintiff's daily over exposure to workplace toxins; p. Failure to adequately supervise the performance of its management personnel and physicians in the implementation of the medical regime and administration of treatment to plaintiff; q. Intentional concealment of the injuries and dis abilities being incurred by plaintiff due to his overexposure to toxins within the work environment; r. Such other intentional, wilful, wanton and reckless acts and omissions as are revealed by discovery. 114. Defendant N.L. Industries, National Lead Industries, National Lead Industries, Pigment and Chemical Division, National Lead Company knew or should have known of the injury to plaintiff -47- NL 000039667 that would b caut j by its failure to act in orrecting the dan gerous work environaent and by failing to adequately warn plain tiff, .yet recklessly disregarded the consequences of such fail ure. 115. Defendant's intentional, wilful, wanton and reckless conduct is the direct and proxiaate cause of plaintiff's injuries and disabilities. Defendant's knowing concealaent of plaintiff's illness has caused plaintiff to suffer enhanced injury and dis ability. WHEREFORE, plaintiff deaands punitive daaagea on this Count in excess of Twenty Thousand Dollars ($20,000.00) in addition to. interest and coats, an aaount in excess of that required for com pulsory arbitration. C_OUNT SEVENTEEN-- - ......................... (vs. N.L. Industries, National Lead Industries, National Lead Industries, Pigaent and Cheaical Division, National Lead Coapany) k 116. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allega tion contained in paragraphs 1 to 115 of this Coaplaint, with the saae force and effect as if fully set forth and repeated herein. 117. Defendant N.L. Industries, National Lead Industries, National Lead Industries, Pigaent and Cheaical Division, National Lead Coapany had an iaplied contractual obligation to plaintiff to assure that plaintiff's health would not be adversely affected by virtue of plaintiff's work with lead and other noxious sub stances. 118. Defendant N.L. Industries, National Lead Industries, National Lead Industries, Pigaent and Cheaical Division, National 48000039668 Nt Lead Coapany represented to plaintiff that a proper and adequate medical regiae would be aaintained pursuant to defendant's im plied contractual obligation. 119. Defendant N.L. Industries, National Lead Industries, National Lead Industries, Pigment and Chemical Division, National Lead Coapany have breached its contractual obligation, causing plaintiff to be haraed by such breach. 120. Defendants knew that the breach of their iaplied con tract with plaintiff would result in injuries to plaintiff, name ly those diseases and conditions set forth in Paragraph 21 of this Coaplaint. WHEREFORE, plaintiff demands judgment against defendant Bers and Company, Inc., on this Count in excess of Twenty Thousand Dollars ($20,000.00) in addition to interest and costs, an amount in excess of that required for compulsory arbitration. COUNT EIGHTEEN (vs. All Defendants) 121. The plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every al legation contained in this Complaint with the same force and effect against the defendants and their subsidiaries, jointly and severally, as if fully set forth here at length. 122. The defendants' acts and omissions were intentional, wanton, wilful and with reckless indifference of the consequences as is more fully set forth in the above counts. WHEREFORE, plaintiff demands judgment against these defend ants, jointly and severally, for compensatory and punitive dam ages in an amount in excess of Twenty Thousand Dollars -49- NL 000039669 ($20,000.00) , in addition to interest and coats, an amount in excess of that required for compulsory arbitration. COPHT NINETEEN (vs. All Defendants) 123. All of the allegations of Counts One through and in cluding Eighteen are incorporated herein by reference as though recited here at length. 124. At all times material hereto, the plaintiff was the wife of plaintiff-employee and as such, was and is entitled to his love, affection, society, and companionship all of which she was deprived of and will be deprived of in the future, to her great detriment and damage. 125. As a result of the negligence and intentional, wilful and wanton actions and omissions of defendants, plaintiff has .^.n the past and will in the future be required to expend large sums of money in the care and treatment of her husband. WHEREFORE, plaintiff demands judgment against each defendant on this Count in an amount in excess of Twenty Thousand Dollars ($20,000.00) in addition to interest and costs, an amount in ex cess of that required for compulsory arbitration. COPHT TWENTY (vs. All Defendants) 126. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 to 125 inclusive of this Complaint, with the same force and effect as if fully set forth and repeated herein. 127. Defendants conspired, combined or agreed to cause -50- NL 000039670 injury to plaintiff by theirs a. Failure to sake the workplace safe froa lead, arsenic, cadmium, heavy metals, dust, dirt, chemicals, noise and other noxious eleaents and vapors; b. Failure to warn the plaintiff of the danger of arsenic, lead, cadaiua, dust, dirt, chemicals, noise and heavy aetal toxicity froa long-term exposure; c. Failure to inform the plaintiff of the symptoms of arsenic, cadaiua and lead poisoning caused by long-term exposure; d. Failure to warn the plaintiff of the danger of arsenic, cadaiua and lead toxicity being transferred to the employee's iaaediate faaily; e. Failure to inform the plaintiff of the long-term effects of arsenic, cadaiua, lead, and chemical poisoning orifce contracted; f. Failure to inform the plaintiff that the safety measures being implemented and adhered to were not protecting the employees from lead poisoning, arsenic poisoning or overexposure to other toxic elestents; g. Failure to inform the plaintiff that the medical health services were not remedial and were not protecting the plaintiff ffoa lead poisoning, arsenic poisoning or overexposure to other noxious eleaents; h. Failure to warn the plaintiff that the safety gear and products being utilized were not protecting the plaintiff froa lead poisoning, arsenic poisoning or overexposure to other toxic elements; NL 000039671 i. Failure to train plaintiff in the proper use and aaintenance of the safety devices being provided) j. Representing to the plaintiff that strict adherence to the safety prograa and directives given with respect to the use of safety gear and aedical health services would protect the plaintiff froa arsenic, cadaiua and lead poisoning and exposure to other noxious eleaents; k. Intentionally concealing froa plaintiff that his high blood lead, cadaiua and arsenic levels would result in lead poisoning, kidney disease, renal failure and related injuries; l. Failure to infora plaintiff that reaedial aedical treataent was required to prevent or correct the ill effects being caused by his high blood lead, cadaiua and arsenic levels; a. Failure to reaove plaintiff froa the highly toific lead and heavy aetal infested environaent prior to the date when plaintiff was terainated; n. Failure to render proper aedical care and treataent to the plaintiff; o. Failure to provide plaintiff with adequate respiratory protection, aedical screening and treataent and appropriate engineering controls to prevent plaintiff's daily overexposure"to workplace toxins; p. Failure to adequately supervise the perforaance of defendant-physicians in the iapleaentation of the aedical regiae and adainistration of treataent to plaintiff; q. Intentional concealaent of the injuries and disabilities being incurred by plaintiff due to his overexposure to toxins within the work environaent; -52- NL 000039672 r. Such other acta ajnd omissions in furtherance of the conspiracy aa are revealed by discovery. 128. Defendants intended to injure plaintiff by their failure to act in correcting the dangerous work environment and by their failure to adequately warn plaintiff. 129. Plaintiff's injuries have been directly and proximately caused by defendants' acts and omissions in furtherance of the conspiracy. Defendants' knowing concealment of plaintiff's illness has caused plaintiff's severe injuries and/or have caused plaintiff to suffer enhanced injury and disability. WHEREFORE, plaintiff respectfully demands judgment against each defendant named in Counts One through Nineteen of this Com plaint, and request that damages be assessed against each defend ant in an amount in excess of Twenty Thousand Dollars ($20,000.00) in addition to interest and costs, an amount in excess of that required for compulsory arbitration. Plaintiffs further respectfully request that it be awarded attorney's fees and costs, prejudgment interest, punitive damages, and such other relief the Court deems appropriate under the circumstances. MATTIONI, MATTIONI i MATTIONI, LTD. EUGENE MATTIONI, ESQUIRE Attorney for Plaintiffs OF COUNSEL* MATTIONI, MATTIONI 1 MATTIONI, TD. DANTE MATTIONI, ESQUIRE NL 000039673