STATEMENT OF CLAIM Cindy ONeil, claimant herein, by her attorneys Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

and Miller & Zois, LLC, and hereby files this claim against the Defendants David P. Sucosis, M.D. and David P. Sucosis, M.D., P.A. and in support thereof states as follows: FACTS 1. The Plaintiff is a resident of Baltimore, Maryland. 2. The Defendant David P. Sucosis, M. D. is a physician licensed to practice medicine in the State of Maryland and regularly engages in the practice of medicine in Baltimore, Maryland. 3. The Defendant David P. Sucosis, M.D., P.A. is a Maryland Corporation with its principle corporate office located at 106 Milford Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21202. 4. That Defendant David P. Sucosis, M.D., P.A. is a Maryland Corporation engaged in the practice of medicine in the State of Maryland by and through David P. Sucosis, M.D. 5. That the amount of this claim exceeds the jurisdiction limit of the District Court of Maryland (i.e. $30,000.00) and the appropriate venue for this claim is Baltimore, Maryland as both Defendants maintain their principle place of business in Baltimore, Maryland and as the incident of medical malpractice occurred in Baltimore, Maryland. 6. That David P. Sucosis, M.D. is the President of David P. Sucosis, M.D., P.A. 7. That on January 13, 2006, David P. Sucosis, M.D. was employed by David P. Sucosis, M.D., P.A. 8. That on or about January 13, 2006, David P. Sucosis, M.D. provided medical services to the Plaintiff in Baltimore, Maryland in the form of an operation (an attempted hysterectomy). 9. That during the Plaintiffs surgery on January 3, 2007, David P. Sucosis, M.D. was acting as an agent/employee of David P. Sucosis, M.D., P.A. and was providing medical services to the Plaintiff within the scope of that agency/employment. 10. That during the Plaintiffs surgery on January 3, 2007, David P. Sucosis, M.D. lacerated the Plaintiffs left iliac vein and artery causing severe physical injury and conscious pain and suffering to the Plaintiff.

11. That during the Plaintiffs surgery on January 3, 2007, David P. Sucosis, M. D. owed a duty to the Plaintiff to perform the surgery within an acceptable standard of medical care within the medical community and David P. Sucosis, M.D. breached this standard of care by lacerating the Plaintiffs left iliac vein and artery causing the Plaintiff physical injury. 12. That as a direct and proximate result of the breach of the applicable standard of medical care by David P. Sucosis, which resulted in the laceration of the Plaintiffs left iliac vein and artery, the Plaintiff: 1) suffered conscious pain and suffering in the past and will suffer conscious pain and suffering into the future, 2) incurred past and future lost wages, 3) suffered loss of earning capacity in the past and into the future, 4) suffered loss of household services in the past and into the future, 5) incurred medical expenses in the past and will incur future medical expenses, 6) suffered mental anguish, 7) suffered permanent physical injuries and disfigurement, and 8) was required to undergo additional medical procedures and has sustained other damages. 13. That all of the injuries and damages sustained by the Plaintiff were the direct and proximate result of the negligent actions of David P. Sucosis and David P. Sucosis, M.D., P.A. without any act or omission on the part of the Plaintiff directly thereunto contributing. 14. That the Plaintiff did not assume the risk of her injuries. COUNT I (Negligence Medical Malpractice) 1. The Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference herein all of the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-14 above. 2. That David P. Sucosis, M.D. deviated from the acceptable standard of medical care during the surgery he performed on the Plaintiff on January 3, 2007 and that this deviation was the direct and proximate cause of the laceration of the Plaintiffs left iliac vein and artery and the direct and proximate cause of all of the Plaintiffs injuries and damages. WHEREFORE: The Plaintiff claims damages against David P. Sucosis, M.D. individually in an amount to be determined at trial, plus costs, and for any further relief that this Honorable Court determines necessary and appropriate.

COUNT II (Negligence Medical Malpractice via Agency) The Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference herein all of the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-16 above.

That at the time of the surgical procedure performed on the Plaintiff on January 3, 2007 by David P. Sucosis, M.D., David P. Sucosis, M.D. was acting within the scope of his employment and agency with Defendant David P. Sucosis, M.D., P.A. WHEREFORE: The Plaintiff claims damages against David P. Sucosis, M.D., P.A. in an amount to be determined at trial, plus costs, and for any further relief that this Honorable Court deems necessary and appropriate.

Respectfully submitted, MILLER & ZOIS, LLC

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL THE PARTIES 1. Plaintiff David Meggett is of legal age and is a resident of Massachusetts.

2. Defendant Bertram Stevens, M.D. is a physician licensed to practice within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. At all relevant times, Defendant Stevens had a place of business at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts.

3. Defendant Michael Wilstone, M.D. is a physician licensed to practice within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. At all relevant times, Defendant Wilstone had a place of business at Brigham Womens Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 4. On January 3, 1998, David Meggett was participating in a football game as a member of the New England Patriots. He injured his right mid-foot during the first half of the game and was examined by Defendant Stevens. Mr. Meggett was prescribed and provided with pain medication by Dr. Stevens to mask the pain in Mr. Meggetts mid-foot, so that he could continue to play in the remainder of the football game. Mr. Meggett returned to the game and played the remainder of the game. 5. On the following day, Dr. Stevens ordered radiographs of Mr. Meggetts foot. These radiographs indicated that he had a Lisfranc fracture in his mid-foot. Dr. Stevens diagnosed a mid-foot sprain.

6. Dr. Stevens told Mr. Meggett to return to him if his foot did not improve. 7. Initially, the pain in Mr. Meggetts foot decreased and he believed his foot was improving. However, by April 1998, Mr. Meggett believed, because he was continuing to experience pain, that he did not have a mere sprain in his foot. He received more diagnostic testing and returned to Dr. Stevens on April 7, 1998. Dr. Stevens reviewed Mr. Meggetts test results and referred Mr. Meggett to Dr. Michael Wilstone, an orthopedic surgeon at Brigham and Womens Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts. 8. On April 8, 1998, Dr. Wilstone reviewed Mr. Meggetts medical records and diagnosed a Lisfranc fracture in his right mid-foot. Dr. Wilstone suggested surgery. 9. Dr. Wilstone did not properly advise Mr. Meggett that he intended to perform an EHL tendon graph to repair his Lisfranc injury or the risks associated with such a procedure. Dr. Wilstone also did not advise Mr. Meggett that he had never performed a tendon graph for this type of operation, that the medical literature has never even suggested or even discussed this type of procedure, and that Dr. Wilstone had never even discussed such a procedure with another physician specializing in ankle and foot surgery before (or after) the operation. Had Mr. Meggett known the risks associated with this operation, the importance of the tendon graph and the novelty of this procedure, he never would have consented to the operation. Moreover, even assuming a tendon graph was advisable, Dr. Wilstone negligently selected the EHL tendon, an important tendon for an NFL player, for the tendon graph to repair his Lisfranc injury. 10. Dr. Wilstone performed an operation on Mr. Meggett on April 16, 1998 to repair his Lisfranc fracture. Mr. Meggetts EHL tendon was ruptured by Dr. Wilstones ill-advised use of Mr. Meggetts tendon. 11. Dr. Wilstone operated on Mr. Meggett again on July 9, 1998. During this operation, Dr. Wilstone learned that his repair of Mr. Meggetts EHL tendon did not hold. He was required to again reattach the broken tendon. COUNT I NEGLIGENCE (DR. STEVENS) 12. Plaintiff David Meggett restates and reincorporates by reference each and every allegation stated in paragraphs 1-11 above. 13. Dr. Stevens was negligent in his care and treatment of Mr. Meggett in that he failed to care for and treat him in accordance with the standard of care and skill required of and ordinarily exercised by the average qualified physician engaged in medical practice at a professional level, such as that in which Dr. Stevens was engaged. 14. Dr. Stevens negligence include, but was not limited to, the failure to examine properly and diagnose his medical condition; failure to provide, recommend and refer Mr. Meggett for appropriate

diagnostic study, care, consultation, and treatment; failure to properly recommend the appropriate follow-up with the patient, and the failure to monitor Mr. Meggetts progress. 15. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Dr. Stevens, Mr. Meggett has suffered injuries and damages including but not limited to delay in the diagnosis and treatment of his Lisfranc injury to his right mid-foot, surgery, pain and suffering, financial loss, and other damages which rendered him no longer able to engage in his chosen profession of a National Football League player. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff David Meggett demands judgment against defendant Dr. Bertram Stevens, M.D on Count I of Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint, in the amount that will justly compensate him for his damages, together with interest, costs and attorneys fees of this action. COUNT II NEGLIGENCE (DR. WILSTONE) 16. Plaintiff David Meggett restates and reincorporates by reference each and every allegation stated in paragraphs 1-15 above. 17. Dr. Michael G. Wilstone was negligent in his care and treatment of Mr. Meggett in that he failed to care for and treat him in accordance with the standard of care and skill required of, and ordinarily exercised by the average qualified physician engaged in medical practice at the professional level, such as that in which Dr. Wilstone was engaged. 18. Dr. Wilstones negligence included, but was not limited to, the following: failure to follow the requisite standard of care and skill in performing surgery on Mr. Meggett. More specifically, Dr. Wilstone was negligent in using Mr. Meggett EHL tendon to repair his Lisfranc injury. 19. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Dr. Wilstone, Mr. Meggett has suffered injuries and damages including but not limited to the damage to his EHL tendon, unnecessary surgical procedures, pain and suffering, financial loss, and other damages which rendered him no longer able to engage in his chosen profession of a National Football League player. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff David Meggett demands judgment against defendant Dr. Michael G. Wilstone, M.D., on Count II of Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint in the amount that will justly compensate him for his damages, together with interest, costs and attorneys fees of this action. COUNT III NEGLIGENCE/INFORMED CONSENT (DR. WILSTONE) 20. Plaintiff David Meggett restates and reincorporates by reference each and every allegation stated in paragraphs 1-19 above. 21. Dr. Wilstone had a duty to disclose in a reasonable manner all significant medical information that he possessed or reasonably should have possessed that is material to an intelligent decision by the patient whether to undergo a proposed procedure.

22. This risk that was not disclosed as set forth above in paragraph 9 regarding Dr. Wilstones use of Mr. Meggetts EHL tendon and his failure to disclose the extreme novelty of the procedure, materialized when Mr. Meggetts EHL tendon ruptured during, and again after, his operation. 23. If Dr. Wilstone had provided the proper information, neither Mr. Meggett nor a reasonable person in similar circumstances would have undergone the procedure. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff David Meggett demands judgment against defendant Dr. Michael G. Wilstone, M.D., on Count III of Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint in the amount that will justly compensate him for his damages, together with interest, costs and attorneys fees of this action.

PLAINTIFF DEMANDS A TRIAL BY JURY ON ALL CLAIMS IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION. Respectfully submitted,