Header graphic for print
Dangerous Drugs & Medical Devices News & Commentary on Prescription Drug & Medical Device Lawsuits

Yaz Attorneys File Lawsuit Against Makers of Yaz and Yasmin

Posted in Yaz, Yasmin & Ocella

This Yaz lawsuit was filed in May of 2009, and explains some of the risks associated with taking Yaz or Yasmin.

15. YASMIN received FDA approval first in 2001. It is a combination of drospirenone, a progestin, and ethinyl estradiol, an estrogen.

16. YAZ received approval from the FDA in 2006 and is essentially the same as YASMIN, with the only difference being a slightly smaller amount of ethinyl estradiol.

17. YAZ and YASMIN are indicated for the prevention of pregnancy in women who elect to use an oral contraceptive.

18. Combination birth control pills are referred to as combined hormonal oral contraceptives.

19. The difference between YAZ and other birth control pills on the market is that drospirenone has never before been marketed in the United States and is unlike other progestins available in the United States.

20. In April 2002, the British Medical Journal reported that the Dutch College of General Practitioners recommended that older second generation birth control pills be prescribed in lieu of YASMIN as a result of 40 cases of venous thrombosis among women taking YAZ/YASMIN.

21. In February 2003, a paper entitled Thromboembolism associated with the new contraceptive YAZ/YASMIN was published in the British Medical Journal detailing a Netherlands Pharmacovigilance Centre report of additional reports of thromboembolism where YAZ/YASMIN was suspected as the cause, including two deaths.

22. Defendants have twice been warned by the FDA, in 2003 and 2008, for misleading the public through the use of television advertisements which overstate the efficacy of the drugs and minimize the serious risks associated with the drugs.

23. The use of YAZ/YASMIN has a prothrombotic effect resulting in the development of thromboses, such as pulmonary emboli and deep vein thrombosis.

24. Defendants failed to recognize the correlation between the use of YAZ/YASMIN and increased thrombosis formation despite the wealth of scientific information available.

25. Upon information and belief, Defendants knew or should have known about the correlation between YAZ/YASMIN use and a prothrombotic effect and still promoted, sold, advertised, and marketed the use of YAZ/YASMIN without sufficient warnings.

26. YAZ/YASMIN use of drospirenone, a diuretic, creates unique risks for compared to other oral contraceptives. These risks include heart arrhythmias, myocardial infarction, and other adverse cardiovascular events, including sudden death.

27. The diuretic in YAZ/YASMIN is also known to cause problems with the gallbladder; the problems sometimes require surgical intervention. The diuretic also causes kidney stone formation.

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania.

 

Alyssa S. BRITTEN, Plaintiff,

 

v.

BAYER PHARMACEUTICALS CORPORATION, Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
Defendants.

       May 14, 2009.

Jury Trial Demanded

Complaint

Respectfully Submitted, /s/ DNG4046, Daniel N. Gallucci (Atty. ID No. 81995),
Joanne E. Matusko (Atty. ID No. 91059), RodaNast, P.C., 801 Estelle Drive,
Lancaster, Pennsylvania 17601, Telephone: (717) 892-3000, Facsimile: (717)
892-1200, Counsel for Plaintiff.

AND COMES NOW Plaintiff for her multiple causes of action against Defendants and
alleges and states the following:

THE PARTIES

1. Plaintiff resides in Pennsylvania.

2. Defendant Bayer Pharmaceuticals Corporation is, and at times relevant was, a
corporation organized under the laws of the State of Delaware with its
headquarters and principal place of business at 1400 Morgan Lane, West Haven,
Connecticut.

3. At all times relevant, Defendant Bayer Pharmaceuticals Corporation was engaged
in the business of developing, designing, licensing, manufacturing, distributing,
selling, marketing, and/or introducing into interstate commerce, including in the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, either directly or indirectly through third parties,
subsidiaries or related entities, the oral contraceptive, YAZ and YASMIN.

4. As of January 1, 2008, Defendant Bayer Pharmaceuticals Corporation was merged
into Defendant Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

5. Defendant Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is and at times relevant was,
a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware,
having a principal place of business at 340 Changebridge Road, P.O. Box 1000,
Montville, New Jersey 07045-1000.

 

6. At all times relevant, Defendant Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was
engaged in the business of developing, designing, licensing, manufacturing,
distributing, selling, marketing, and/or introducing into interstate commerce,
including in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, either directly or indirectly
through third parties, subsidiaries or related entities, the oral contraceptive,
YAZ and YASMIN.

7. Defendant Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is the holder of approved New
Drug Application (“NDA”) No. 21-676 for YAZ.

8. At all times herein mentioned, each of the Defendants was the agent, servant,
partner, predecessors in interest, aider and abettor, co-conspirator and joint
venture of each of the remaining Defendants herein and were at all times operating
and acting with the purpose and scope of said agency, service, employment,
partnership, conspiracy and joint venture.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

9. Plaintiff alleges damages in excess of one hundred fifty thousand dollars
($150,000.00), exclusive of costs and interests.

10. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. s 1332,
as there is complete diversity of citizenship between Plaintiff and Defendants,
and the amount in controversy exceeds $150,000.00, exclusive of interest and
costs.

11. Venue is proper in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania pursuant to 28
U.S.C.A. s1391, as a substantial part of the events giving rise to these claims
occurred within this district. Further, Defendants marketed, advertised and
distributed the dangerous product within this District, thereby receiving
substantial financial benefit and profits from the dangerous product within this
District.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

12. Plaintiff took YAZ and/or YASMIN.

13. Plaintiff suffered serious personal injuries caused by YAZ and/or YASMIN.

14. At all relevant times, Defendants designed, manufactured; marketed, and
distributed the pharmaceutical drugs: YAZ and YASMIN, both which are oral
contraceptives.

15. YASMIN received FDA approval first in 2001. It is a combination of
drospirenone, a progestin, and ethinyl estradiol, an estrogen.

16. YAZ received approval from the FDA in 2006 and is essentially the same as
YASMIN, with the only difference being a slightly smaller amount of ethinyl
estradiol.

17. YAZ and YASMIN are indicated for the prevention of pregnancy in women who
elect to use an oral contraceptive.

18. Combination birth control pills are referred to as combined hormonal oral
contraceptives.

19. The difference between YAZ and other birth control pills on the market is that
drospirenone has never before been marketed in the United States and is unlike
other progestins available in the United States.

20. In April 2002, the British Medical Journal reported that the Dutch College of
General Practitioners recommended that older second generation birth control pills
be prescribed in lieu of YASMIN as a result of 40 cases of venous thrombosis among
women taking YAZ/YASMIN.

21. In February 2003, a paper entitled Thromboembolism associated with the new
contraceptive YAZ/YASMIN was published in the British Medical Journal detailing a
Netherlands Pharmacovigilance Centre report of additional reports of
thromboembolism where YAZ/YASMIN was suspected as the cause, including two deaths.

22. Defendants have twice been warned by the FDA, in 2003 and 2008, for misleading
the public through the use of television advertisements which overstate the
efficacy of the drugs and minimize the serious risks associated with the drugs.

23. The use of YAZ/YASMIN has a prothrombotic effect resulting in the development
of thromboses, such as pulmonary emboli and deep vein thrombosis.

24. Defendants failed to recognize the correlation between the use of YAZ/YASMIN
and increased thrombosis formation despite the wealth of scientific information
available.

25. Upon information and belief, Defendants knew or should have known about the
correlation between YAZ/YASMIN use and a prothrombotic effect and still promoted,
sold, advertised, and marketed the use of YAZ/YASMIN without sufficient warnings.

26. YAZ/YASMIN use of drospirenone, a diuretic, creates unique risks for compared
to other oral contraceptives. These risks include heart arrhythmias, myocardial
infarction, and other adverse cardiovascular events, including sudden death.

27. The diuretic in YAZ/YASMIN is also known to cause problems with the
gallbladder; the problems sometimes require surgical intervention. The diuretic
also causes kidney stone formation.

28. The Defendants did not provide adequate warnings to doctors, the health care
community and the public about the risk of serious adverse events that are
described in this complaint.

 

29. As a result of the manufacture, marketing, advertising, promotion,
distribution, the sale of YAZ/YASMIN without adequate warnings about the risks of
serious injuries, Plaintiff has sustained severe and permanent personal injuries.

CAUSES OF ACTION

COUNT I

FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT

 

30. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as if fully set
forth herein and further alleges on information and belief as follows.

31. Prior to Plaintiff’s use of YAZ/YASMIN and during the period in which
Plaintiff actually used YAZ/YASMIN, Defendants fraudulently suppressed material
information regarding the safety and efficacy of YAZ/YASMIN, including information
regarding increased adverse events, pre and post marketing deaths, a high rate of
severe adverse event reports compared to other birth control pills, and the unique
cardiovascular and gallbladder dangers. Defendants also did not disclose the
higher thrombtic risk associated with YAZ/YASMIN. Furthermore, Defendants
fraudulently concealed the safety information about the use of drospirenone, the
only birth control pill using this ingredient. As described above, drospirenone
has several well known serious side effects that are not seen in other forms of
birth control. Plaintiff believes that the fraudulent misrepresentation described
herein was intentional to keep the sales volume of YAZ/YASMIN strong.

32. Defendants fraudulently concealed safety issues with YAZ/YASMIN in order to
induce physicians to prescribe and patients, including Plaintiff, to purchase and
use YAZ/YASMIN.

33. At the time Defendants concealed the fact that YAZ/YASMIN was not safe,
Defendants were under a duty to communicate this information to physicians, the
FDA, the Healthcare community, and the general public in such a manner that they
could appreciate the risks associated with using YAZ/YASMIN.

34. Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s prescribing doctor relied upon the Defendants’
outrageous untruths regarding the safety of YAZ/YASMIN.

35. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ malicious and or intentional
concealment of material life altering information from Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s
prescribing doctor, Defendants caused or contributed Plaintiff’s injuries.

36. It is unconscionable and outrageous that Defendants would risk the lives of
consumers. Despite this knowledge, the Defendants made conscious decisions not to
redesign, label, warn or inform the unsuspecting consuming public. Defendants’
outrageous conduct rises to the level necessary that Plaintiff should be award
punitive damages to deter Defendants from this type of outrageous conduct in the
future and to discourage Defendants from placing profits above the safety of
patients in the United States of America.

37. Defendants’ fraudulent concealment tolled the statute of limitations because
only Defendants knew the true dangers associated with the use of YAZ/YASMIN as
described herein. Defendants did not disclose this information to the Plaintiff,
the prescribing doctor, the Healthcare community and the general public. Without
full knowledge of the dangers of YAZ/YASMIN, Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s lawyer
could not evaluate whether a person who was injured by YAZ/YASMIN had a valid
claim.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants for such compensatory
damages and punitive damages as a jury may determine to be appropriate and
necessary, in excess of the jurisdictional requirements of this Court, plus
interest and costs.

COUNT II

STRICT LIABILITY

38. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as if fully set
forth herein and further alleges on information and belief as follows.

39. At the time of Plaintiff’s injury, Defendants’ pharmaceutical, YAZ/YASMIN, was
defective and unreasonably dangerous to foreseeable consumers, including
Plaintiff.

40. The YAZ/YASMIN used by Plaintiff was in the same or substantially similar
condition as it was when it left the possession of Defendants.

41. Plaintiff did not misuse or materially alter the YAZ/YASMIN.

42. Defendants are strictly liable for Plaintiff’s injury in the following ways:

a. The pharmaceutical YAZ/YASMIN as designed, manufactured, sold and/or supplied
by the Defendants, was defectively designed and placed into the stream of commerce
by Defendants in a defective and unreasonably dangerous condition;

b. Defendants failed to properly market, design, manufacture, distribute, supply
and sell YAZ/YASMIN;

c. Defendants failed to warn and/or place adequate warnings and instructions on
YAZ/YASMIN;

d. Defendants failed to adequately test YAZ/YASMIN;

e. Defendants failed to provide timely and adequate post-marketing warnings and
instructions after they knew of the risk of injury associated with the use of
YAZ/YASMIN; and

f. A feasible alternative design existed that was capable of preventing
Plaintiff’s injury.

 

43. Defendants’ actions and omissions were the direct and proximate cause of
Plaintiff’s injury.

44. Defendants’ conduct, as described above, was extreme and outrageous.
Defendants risked the lives of the consumers and users of their products,
including Plaintiff, with knowledge of the safety and efficacy problems and
suppressed this knowledge from the general public. Defendants made conscious
decisions not to redesign, re-label, warn or inform the unsuspecting consuming
public. Defendants’ outrageous conduct warrants an award of punitive damages.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants in an amount in excess of
$150,000.00, plus delay damages, interest, costs and punitive damages.

COUNT III

BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY

45. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as if fully set
forth herein and further alleges on information and belief as follows.

46. At the time Defendants marketed, distributed and sold YAZ/YASMIN to Plaintiff,
Defendants warranted that YAZ/YASMIN was merchantable and fit for the ordinary
purposes for which it was intended.

47. Members of the consuming public, including consumers such as Plaintiff, were
intended third party beneficiaries of the warranty.

48. YAZ/YASMIN was not merchantable and fit for its ordinary purpose, because it
has a propensity to lead to the serious personal injuries described in this
complaint.

49. Plaintiff reasonably relied on Defendants’ representations that YAZ/YASMIN was
safe and free of defects and was a safe means of birth control.

50. Defendants’ breach of the implied warranty of merchantability was the direct
and proximate cause of Plaintiff’s injury.

51. Defendants’ conduct, as described above, was extreme and outrageous.
Defendants risked the lives of the consumers and users of their products,
including Plaintiff, with knowledge of the safety and efficacy problems and
suppressed this knowledge from the general public. Defendants made conscious
decisions not to redesign, re-label, warn or inform the unsuspecting consuming
public. Defendants’ outrageous conduct warrants an award of punitive damages.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants in an amount in excess of
$150,000.00, plus delay damages, interest, costs and punitive damages.

COUNT IV

 

BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE

52. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as if fully set
forth herein and further alleges on information and belief as follows.

53. Defendants sold YAZ/YASMIN with an implied warranty that it was fit for the
particular purpose of safe birth control, which offered other benefits, such as
reduced bloating, reduced mood swings, improved complexion, and reduced the
severity of women’s menstruation.

54. Members of the consuming public, including Plaintiff, were intended third
party beneficiaries of the warranty.

55. YAZ/YASMIN was not fit for the particular purpose of a safe birth control pill
without serious risk of personal injury, which risk is much higher than other
birth control pills.

56. Plaintiff reasonably relied on Defendants’ representations that YAZ/YASMIN was
safe and effective for use as a birth control method.

57. Defendants’ breach of the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose
was the direct and proximate cause of Plaintiff’s injury.

58. Defendants’ conduct, as described above, was extreme and outrageous.
Defendants risked the lives of the consumers and users of their products,
including Plaintiff, with knowledge of the safety and efficacy problems and
suppressed this knowledge from the general public. Defendants made conscious
decisions not to redesign, re-label, warn or inform the unsuspecting consuming
public. Defendants’ outrageous conduct warrants an award of punitive damages.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants in an amount in excess of
$150,000.00, plus delay damages, interest, costs as allowed by law and punitive
damages.

COUNT V

NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO WARN

59. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as if fully set
forth herein and further alleges on information and belief as follows.

60. Before Plaintiff used YAZ/YASMIN, and during the period in which she used it,
Defendants knew or had reason to know that YAZ/YASMIN was dangerous and created an
unreasonable risk of bodily harm to consumers.

61. Defendants had a duty to exercise reasonable care to warn end users of the
dangerous conditions or of the facts that made YAZ/YASMIN likely to be dangerous.

 

62. Despite the fact that Defendants knew or had reason to know that YAZ/YASMIN
was dangerous, Defendants failed to exercise reasonable care in warning the
medical community and consumers, including Plaintiff, of the dangerous conditions
and facts that made YAZ/YASMIN likely to be dangerous.

63. The Plaintiff’s injury was a direct and proximate result of Defendants’
failure to warn of the dangers of YAZ/YASMIN.

64. Defendants’ conduct, as described above, was extreme and outrageous.
Defendants risked the lives of consumers and users of their products, including
Plaintiff, with knowledge of the safety and efficacy problems and suppressed this
knowledge from the general public. Defendants made conscious decisions not to
redesign, re-label, warn or inform the unsuspecting consuming public. Defendants’
outrageous conduct warrants an award of punitive damages.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants in an amount in excess of
$150,000.00, plus delay damages, interest, costs and punitive damages.

COUNT VI

NEGLIGENCE

65. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as if fully set
forth herein and further alleges on information and belief as follows.

66. Defendants had a duty to exercise reasonable care in the manufacture, sale and
distribution of YAZ/YASMIN, including a duty to assure that the product did not
cause unreasonable, dangerous side effects to users.

67. Defendants failed to exercise ordinary care in the manufacture, sale,
warnings, quality assurance, quality control, and distribution of YAZ/YASMIN in
that Defendants knew or should have known that the drug created a high risk of
unreasonable harm.

68. Defendants were negligent in the design, manufacture, advertising, warning,
marketing and sale of YAZ/YASMIN in that, among other things, they:

a. Failed to use due care in designing and manufacturing YAZ/YASMIN so as to avoid
the aforementioned risks to individuals;

b. Failed to accompany the drug with proper warnings regarding all possible
adverse side effects associated with its use, and the comparative severity and
duration of such adverse effects. The warnings given did not reflect accurately
the symptoms, scope or severity of the side effects;

c. Failed to provide adequate training and instruction to medical care providers
for appropriate use of YAZ/YASMIN;

d. Placed an unsafe product into the stream of commerce; and e. Were otherwise
careless or negligent.

 

69. Despite the fact that Defendants knew or should have known that YAZ/YASMIN
caused unreasonable, dangerous side effects which many users would be unable to
remedy by any means, Defendants continued to market YAZ/YASMIN to consumers,
including the medical community and Plaintiff.

70. Defendants’ conduct, as described above, was extreme and outrageous.
Defendants risked the lives of the consumers and users of their products,
including Plaintiff, with the knowledge of the safety and efficacy problems and
suppressed this knowledge from the general public. Defendants made conscious
decisions not to redesign, re-label, warn or inform the unsuspecting consuming
public. Defendants’ outrageous conduct warrants an award of punitive damages.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants in an amount in excess of
$150,000.00, plus delay damages, interest, costs and punitive damages.

COUNT VII

NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION

71. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as if fully set
forth herein and further alleges on information and belief as follows.

72. Prior to Plaintiff first using YAZ/YASMIN and during the period in which she
used YAZ/YASMIN, Defendants misrepresented that YAZ/YASMIN was a safe and
effective means of birth control. Defendants also failed to disclose material
facts regarding the safety and efficacy of YAZ/YASMIN, including information
regarding increased adverse events, harmful side effects, and results of clinical
studies showing that use of the medication could be life threatening.

73. Defendants had a duty to provide Plaintiff, physicians, and other consumers
with true and accurate information and warnings of any known risks and side
effects of the pharmaceuticals they marketed, distributed and sold.

74. Defendants knew or should have known, based on their prior experience, adverse
event reports, studies and knowledge of the efficacy and safety failures with
YAZ/YASMIN, that their representations regarding YAZ/YASMIN were false, and that
they had a duty to disclose the dangers of YAZ/YASMIN.

75. Defendants made the representations and failed to disclose the material facts
with the intent to induce consumers, including Plaintiff, to act in reliance by
purchasing YAZ/YASMIN.

76. Plaintiff justifiably relied on Defendants’ representations and nondisclosures
by purchasing and using YAZ/YASMIN.

77. Defendants’ misrepresentations and omissions regarding the safety and efficacy
of YAZ/YASMIN was the direct and proximate cause of Plaintiff’s injuries.

 

78. Defendants’ conduct, as described above, was extreme and outrageous.
Defendants risked the lives of the consumers and users of their products,
including Plaintiff, with knowledge of the safety and efficacy problems and
suppressed this knowledge from the general public. Defendants made conscious
decisions not to redesign, re-label, warn or inform the unsuspecting consuming
public. Defendants’ outrageous conduct warrants an award of punitive damages.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants in an amount in excess of
$150,000.00, plus delay damages, interest, costs and punitive damages.

COUNT VIII

BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY

79. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as if fully set
forth herein and further alleges on information and belief as follows.

80. Defendants expressly warranted that YAZ/YASMIN was safe and effective to
members of the consuming public, including Plaintiff.

81. Members of the consuming public, including consumers such as Plaintiff, were
intended third party beneficiaries of the warranty.

82. Defendants marketed, promoted and sold YAZ/YASMIN as a safe method of birth
control.

83. YAZ/YASMIN does not conform to these express representations because
YAZ/YASMIN is not safe and has serious side effects, including death.

84. Defendants breached their express warranty in one or more of the following
ways:

a. YAZ/YASMIN, as designed, manufactured, sold and/or supplied by the Defendants,
was defectively designed and placed in to the stream of commerce by Defendants in
a defective and unreasonably dangerous condition;

b. Defendants failed to warn and/or place adequate warnings and instructions on
YAZ/YASMIN;

c. Defendants failed to adequately test YAZ/YASMIN; and

d. Defendants failed to provide timely and adequate post-marketing warnings and
instructions after they knew the risk of injury from YAZ/YASMIN.

85. Plaintiff reasonably relied upon Defendants’ warranty that YAZ/YASMIN was safe
and effective when she purchased and used the medication.

86. Plaintiff’s injuries were the direct and proximate result of Defendants’
breach of their express warranty.

87. Defendants’ conduct, as described above, was extreme and outrageous.
Defendants risked the lives of the consumers and users of their products,
including Plaintiff, with knowledge of the safety and efficacy problems and
suppressed this knowledge from the general public. Defendants made conscious
decisions not to redesign, re-label, warn or inform the unsuspecting consuming
public. Defendants’ outrageous conduct warrants an award of punitive damages.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants in an amount in excess of
$150,000.00, plus delay damages, interest, and costs as allowed by law.

COUNT IX

FRAUD

88. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as if fully set
forth herein and further alleges on information and belief as follows.

89. Defendants widely advertised and promoted YAZ/YASMIN as a safe and effective
medication.

90. Defendants had a duty to disclose material information about serious side
effects to consumers such as Plaintiff.

91. Additionally, by virtue of Defendants’ partial disclosures about the
medication, in which Defendants’ touted YAZ/YASMIN as a safe and effective
medication, Defendants had a duty to disclose all facts about the risks associated
with use of the medication, including the risks described in this complaint.
Defendants intentionally failed to disclose this information for the purpose of
inducing consumers, such as Plaintiff, to purchase Defendants’ dangerous product.

92. Had Plaintiff been aware of the hazards associated with YAZ/YASMIN, Plaintiff
would not have consumed the product that led proximately to Plaintiff’s adverse
health effects.

93. Defendants’ advertisements regarding YAZ/YASMIN made material
misrepresentations to the effect that YAZ/YASMIN was a safe and effective
medication, which misrepresentations Defendants knew to be false, for the purpose
of fraudulently inducing consumers, such as Plaintiff, to purchase such product.
Plaintiff relied on these material misrepresentations when deciding to purchase
and consume YAZ/YASMIN.

94. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff avers that Defendants actively and
fraudulently concealed information in Defendants’ exclusive possession regarding
the hazards associated with YAZ/YASMIN with the purpose of preventing consumers,
such as Plaintiff, from discovering these hazards.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants in an amount in excess of
$150,000.00, plus delay damages, interest, costs and punitive damages.

Date: May 13, 2009