CASE NO. COMPLAINT Plaintiff, Picheny Equestrian Enterprises, Inc. ("Picheny"), as and for its

Transcription

1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA GENERAL JURISDICTION DIVISION Civil Action?- ( CASE NO. PICHENY EQUEST~AN ENTERPRisEs, IN~ "~mo CA 0 ~ xxxx a New York corporation, ~ C C... Plaintiff, ~ c:j (") (/) v. c::::» :;:;-o:r: AH., C')l>> >,- ~ c: -=:J:o G") --< -r THOMAS A. GIFFITH, OJr _, ~J"Tl:O individually, and,.. ===~~ THOMAS A. GRIFFITH, D.V.M., P.A., MP-'i m : : ::r:- --~-- :::;: A Florida corporation, ::Oa=' 0 -=r. i- - -::=:,--.. ::_~-~,., ;.;c Defendants. w / COMPLAINT Plaintiff, Picheny Equestrian Enterprises, Inc. ("Picheny"), as and for its Complaint against Defendants Thomas Griffith and Thomas A. Griffith, D.V.M., P.A. (collectively "Griffith") alleges as follows: Nature of the Action 1. This is an action for professional negligence and breach of contract. Parties, Jurisdiction & Venue 2. Plaintiff Picheny Equestrian Enterprises, Inc. is a corporation organized and existing under the laws ofnew York. 3. Defendant Thomas A. Griffith is a citizen of the United States and resident of the - 1 -

2 State of Florida, having an address at 3501 S.W. 126 Avenue, Miramar, FL Defendant Thomas A. Griffith, D.V.M., P.A. is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Florida with its principal plac~ of business at 3501 S.W. 126 Avenue, Miramar, FL The Jurisdiction of this State is proper in that, in the State of Florida, Defendants have transacted business, negotiated a contract, conducted business with Plaintiff, committed breach of contract and have otherwise committed tortious acts in Florida. 6. This is an action for damages exceeding $15,000.00, exclusive of interest, costs and attorney's fees within the subject matter jurisdiction of this Court. 7. Venue is proper in this county pursuant to F.S , because (I) Defendant conducted business with Plaintiff in this county; (ii) the contract which is the subject matter of this action was formed and performed in this county; and (iii) the professional negligence committed by Defendants occurred in this county. Allegations Common to All Counts 8. In or about November 2007, Defendants agreed to provide veterinary services for a horse named "Wholio" (the "Horse") owned by Picheny. 9. The Horse was an international level dressage horse which Picheny had purchased as an investment for $250, in September The continuous presence of a dressage horse in international competition is a material factor in the market value of the horse. A horse that cannot compete cannot establish a record of successes and cannot be marketed to prospective purchasers. 11. The Horse was examined and treated by Defendants on a regular basis from - 2 -

3 November 2007 until August 2008 for veterinary care, for lameness issues, and for performance issues. As a result of a reoccurring and unresolved lameness of the Horse during the time the Horse was treated by Defendants, multiple lameness exams were performed by Dr. Griffith over that period of 9 months. As a result of each exam, multiple joint injections and other treatments were rendered by Defendants. 12. In February 2008, Dr. Griffith took radiographs of the Horse, specifically of the left front foot and pastern area. Dr. Griffith made no observations or diagnosis based on these radiographs. If any observations or diagnosis were made by Dr. Griffith, they were not reported to Picheny. 13. Following the February 2008 radiographs, Dr. Griffith continued his pattern of examining the Horse and injecting the Horse's joints. Over the course of the nine (9) months of treatment, over 35 joint and back injections of the Horse were performed by Dr Griffith. 14. In June 2008, Picheny requested that Dr. Griffith review. the Horse's entire veterinary history in order to determine why the repeated amount of joint injections were necessary. In the course of that request by Picheny, Dr. Griffith was provided radiographs taken in August 2007 as well as other records. 15. Upon information and belief, Dr. Griffith reviewed records and did not make any observations or diagnosis and if he did so, they were not reported to Picheny. 16. Thereafter, in October 2008, the Horse was examined by another veterinarian. After observing the Horse, reviewing Dr. Griffith's radiographs and reviewing the Horse's veterinary history, all of which had been previously and fully provided to Dr

4 Griffith, the veterinarian determined that a mass was present and growing in the Horse's front left pastern area. 17. The examining veterinarian reported that the mass was causing "resorption" of one of the pastern bones, known as "(P2)", and that this condition was the cause of the recurrent lameness experienced by the Horse. 18. The veterinarian referred the Horse to Penn Veterinary Medicine, School of Veterinary Medicine, New Bolton Center ("New Bolton") for surgery to remove the mass, which had grown significantly while the Horse was in Dr. Griffith's care. Following removal of the mass, the veterinarians at New Bolton determined that it was a keratoma. 19. The Horse was operated on by the veterinarians at New Bolton in Pennsylvania with a successful outcome surgically. 20. Following many months of costly post-surgical rest and rehabilitation, the lameness in the left front limb has resolved. 21. However, as a consequence of the invasive nature of the keratoma surgery and the significant time required for rest and rehabilitation, the Horse has been unable to return to its previous level of performance. 22. Specifically, the Horse has been unable to show at the international level and has lost two show seasons during its prime showing years. The market value of the Horse has therefore been negatively affected by the delay m diagnosis caused by the failure of Defendants to diagnose the true condition of lameness and lengthy rest and rehabilitation period required after the true cause of the - 4-

5 lameness had been determined and surgically resolved. Had Defendants discovered the keratoma earlier, the severity, amount of time and cost attributable to the surgery, rest and rehabilitation of the Horse would have been reduced considerably. 24. Had the keratoma been observed, diagnosed and/or reported to Picheny properly by Dr. Griffith in February 2008, or any time thereafter, the Horse would not have required the invasive surgery and that was ultimately needed to remove the keratoma. 25. Additionally, Plaintiff has incurred significant veterinary, treatment, board, care and rehabilitative training costs as a result of the failure of Defendants to diagnose the true condition of lameness. 26. All conditions precedent to this action have either occurred, been waived or are excused. Count I (Professional Negligence) 27. Plaintiffrealleges ~~I through 26, inclusive, as if more fully set forth herein. 28. Defendants represented themselves to Plaintiff to possess the requisite education, training and experience to provide the required equine veterinary services to the Horse. As a result, Defendants owed to Picheny a duty of care in rendering those veterinary services to the Horse. 15. Defendants breached their duty of care as follows: a. Failing to properly observe and/or diagnose the keratoma present in the Horse's left front pastern area over the 9 months Defendants treated the Horse; and b. Failing to properly treat the Horse for recurrent left front limb lameness by, among other things, masking the Horse's left front limb lameness with improper use - 5 -

6 of joint injections and other medications such that the keratoma could not reasonably be discovered until October 2008 when another veterinarian examined the Horse. 16. The foregoing breaches by the Defendants were a direct and proximate cause of damages to Picheny in excess of$ 400, WHEREFORE Plaintiff demands judgment in its favor and against Defendants for compensatory damages, reasonable attorney's fees, costs, interest, and for such other and further relief as is just and appropriate. Count II (Breach of Contract) 29. Plaintiff realleges ~~ 1 through 26, inclusive, as if more fully set forth herein. 30. Defendants contracted with Picheny to provide equine veterinary services to the Horse in Florida in a manner consistent with the customs, practices and standards of the equine veterinary industry in the State of Florida. 31. Defendants breached that contract for services with Picheny by failing to properly observe and/or diagnose the keratoma present in the Horse's left front pastern area and by failing to properly treat the Horse for recurrent left front limb lameness by, among other things, masking the Horse's left front limb lameness with improper use of joint injections and other medications such that the keratoma could not reasonably be discovered until October 2008 when another veterinarian examined the Horse. In addition, Defendants breached the contract for services by failing to timely provide the horse's veterinary records when requested by Picheny. 16. The foregoing breaches by the Defendants were a direct and proximate cause of damages to Picheny in excess of$ 375,

7 WHEREFORE Plaintiff demands judgment in its favor and against Defendants for compensatory damages, reasonable attorney's fees, costs, interest, and for such other and further relief as is just and appropriate. DEMAND FOR JURY Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury on all issues triable as of right. Respectfully submitted, Picheny Equestrian Enterprises, Inc., By Its Counsel, Suite 103 Wellington, FL Tel: (561) Fax: (561)