Dustin Lance, Bar No.
8804
dlance@lanceandrewlaw.com
Jessica A. Andrew, Bar No. 12433
jandrew@lanceandrewlaw.com
LANCE ANDREW, P.C.
15 West South Temple, Suite 1650
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
Office: (801) 869-6800
Facsimile: (801) 869-6801
Attorneys for Plaintiff
IN THE THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
SALT LAKE COUNTY, STATE OF UTAH
ROBERT ARIAS, and PHAWELL ARIAS, COMPLAINT AND
JURY DEMAND
Plaintiffs,
Tier 3
v.
WYATT EYE, LLC, PAUL WADE WYATT, Civil No.
MARNI WYATT, and JANE DOE 1-10,
Judge
Defendants.
Plaintiffs, by and through counsel and pursuant to Utah Rules of Civil Procedure,
complain of Defendants as follows:
PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1. Plaintiff Robert Arias (hereinafter “Robert”) is and was, at all times
relevant to this action, a resident of Salt Lake County, Utah.
2. Plaintiff Phawell Arias (hereinafter “Phawell”) is and was, at all times
relevant to this action, the wife of Robert and a resident of Salt Lake County, Utah.
3. On information and belief, Defendant Paul Wade Wyatt (hereinafter “Dr.
Wyatt”) is and was, at all times relevant to this action, a resident of Salt Lake County,
Utah.
4. On information and belief, Defendant Marni Wyatt (hereinafter “Mrs.
Wyatt”) is and was, at all times relevant to this action, the wife of Dr. Wyatt and a
resident of Salt Lake County, Utah.
5. On information and belief, Jane Doe Defendants are employees or agents
of Wyatt Eye and were, at all times relevant to this action, residents of Salt Lake County,
Utah.
6. Defendant Wyatt Eye, LLC (hereinafter “Wyatt Eye”) was at all relevant
times a health care provider in Salt Lake County, Utah doing business as Wyatt Eye. At
all times relevant, Wyatt Eye was the employer of Dr. Wyatt, Mrs. Wyatt and the Jane
Doe Defendants. Dr. Wyatt, Mrs. Wyatt and Jane Doe Defendants were agents of Wyatt
Eye and were acting within the course and scope of their employment. Alternatively,
Wyatt Eye controlled the actions of the other Defendants so as to make Wyatt Eye
responsible for the actions, inactions, and negligence of the other Defendants.
7. Pursuant to Utah Code Ann. § 78B-3-418, the Division of Occupational
and Professional Licensing issued a Certificate of Compliance on this matter on October
7, 2019. Therefore, all statutory conditions precedent to the commencement of this
action have been met. (A copy of that certificate is attached hereto and incorporated by
reference as “Exhibit 1”).
8. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to Utah Code Ann. § 78A-5-102 (1).
2
9. Venue is properly laid before the Third Judicial District Court in and for
Salt Lake County, State of Utah, pursuant to the provisions of § 78B-3-307, in that the
causes of action alleged below arose within Salt Lake County, State of Utah.
10. Plaintiff’s damages exceed $300,000.00 making this case a Tier 3 case
under the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS OF FACT
11. Plaintiffs, by and through this reference, hereby incorporates paragraphs
nos. 1 through 10 above, as if fully set forth herein.
12. In February of 2018, Robert saw a local ophthalmologist due to changes in
his vision.
13. At that time, Robert, who suffers from diabetes, periodically had difficulty
with focusing and nighttime vision.
14. After completing a full ophthalmologic examination, the ophthalmologist
recommended that Robert get cataract surgery.
15. Due to financial constraints, Robert sought the prescribed cataract
surgeries at the Maliheh Free Clinic in Salt Lake City, Utah (hereinafter “Maliheh,”
information about Maliheh and its mission of providing free quality medical care to low
income and uninsured Utah families is attached hereto and incorporated by reference as
“Exhibit 2”).
16. In June of 2018, Robert was examined at Maliheh by Dr. Wyatt who, on
information and belief, was volunteering and was providing ophthalmology services to
Maliheh’s patrons.
3
17. Robert was not told by Dr. Wyatt, or Maliheh staff, of any restrictions to Dr.
Wyatt’s medical licensing or the care he could render or the procedures he could and could
not perform.
18. Dr. Wyatt has had significant previous problems in each of the states that
he had been licensed and practiced medicine in, including Minnesota, Wyoming and
Utah.
19. Minnesota. Dr. Wyatt was first licensed to practice medicine in Minnesota
on July 8, 2000. Unfortunately, Dr. Wyatt had an infection and complication rate more
than 300% higher than the national average and his conduct was found to be a departure
from or failure to conform to the minimum standards of acceptable and prevailing
medical practice. As a result of these issues and more, Dr. Wyatt surrendered his
Minnesota license to practice medicine in 2007. (Copies of Dr. Wyatt’s Minnesota
licensing information are attached hereto and incorporated by reference as “Exhibit 3”).
20. Wyoming. Dr. Wyatt was first licensed to practice medicine in Wyoming on
June 5, 2004. Unfortunately, by June 22, 2006, the Wyoming Medical Board had 15
separate patient complaints containing allegations that could violate provisions of the
Wyoming Medical Practice Act. The patients’ complaints ranged from post-surgical
infections and eye blurriness to complete blindness. The Wyoming Board of Medicine
summarily suspended Dr. Wyatt’s license and the Board ordered that he not engage in
any surgical or invasive ophthalmological practice. Thereafter, Dr. Wyatt surrendered his
Wyoming license to practice medicine. (Copies of Dr. Wyatt’s Wyoming licensing
information are attached hereto and incorporated by reference as “Exhibit 4”).
4
21. Utah. Dr. Wyatt was first licensed to practice medicine in Utah on May 9,
2007. At that time, Dr. Wyatt’s license was restricted subject to several conditions. The
conditions relevant to this matter were that Dr. Wyatt was indefinitely restricted to the
practice of medical ophthalmology only. Dr. Wyatt was not authorized to perform, or
assist in the performance of, any surgical or invasive procedure of any kind. (Copies of
Dr. Wyatt’s Utah licensing information up through 2016 are attached hereto and
incorporated by reference as “Exhibit 5”).
22. In August of 2012, Dr. Wyatt’s application for renewal of his Utah license
was denied. Id.
23. In February of 2016, Dr. Wyatt’s application for reinstatement of his Utah
license was denied. Id.
24. On October 12, 2016, Dr. Wyatt’s application for reinstatement of his Utah
license was granted subject to several conditions. The conditions relevant to his matter
are that Dr. Wyatt was not to engage in surgical or invasive ophthalmological practice and
Dr. Wyatt was not to work in private practice. Id.
25. After examining Robert at Maliheh, Dr. Wyatt agreed that Robert needed
cataract surgeries on both eyes. However, Dr. Wyatt said Maliheh had a waiting list for
cataract surgeries and it would be one to two years before Robert would be able to obtain
these through the clinic. Instead of adding Robert to the waiting list, Dr. Wyatt solicited
Robert to become one of his patients. Dr. Wyatt told Robert that if he became a patient
of his private clinic, Wyatt Eye, he could perform the necessary surgeries at a significantly
discounted rate.
5
26. On information and belief, Dr. Wyatt solicited many other poor and
unsuspecting patients at Maliheh to become patients at Wyatt Eye where he claimed to
offer discounted services. Many of those he solicited were Hispanic and did not have legal
residency in the United States. Dr. Wyatt performed treatment and procedures on these
individuals that he was not only not licensed to perform but was specifically restricted
from performing.
27. According to its Facebook page, Wyatt Eye claims that “[they] are
committed to offering affordable eye care to all . . . and [they] specialize in assisting
patients who are under insured or uninsured.” There is no information suggesting that
Wyatt Eye, or its staff, are restricted in the services that can be provided. (Information
about Wyatt Eye is attached hereto and incorporated by reference as “Exhibit 6”).
28. In attempts to persuade Robert to become a patient at his clinic, Dr. Wyatt
touted his credentials as a professor at LDS Business College, commented on he and
Robert’s mutual membership in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints,
mentioned that he had family members that were amongst the highest ranking general
leaders in the Church and mentioned that his wife, Mrs. Wyatt, worked for the Church in
the missionary travel department. Importantly, Dr. Wyatt did not inform Robert of the
relevant restrictions to his medical license. Based on Dr. Wyatt’s promise to help him, and
with no knowledge of Dr. Wyatt’s history re restrictions, Robert went to and became a
patient at Wyatt Eye located at 4465 South 900 East in Holladay, Utah. Once Robert
became a patient at Wyatt Eye, Dr. Wyatt regularly encouraged him to refer his friends,
family, and other members of the local Hispanic community, to Dr. Wyatt for
ophthalmologic treatment including surgical opthamology.
6
29. Mrs. Wyatt and Doe Defendants were employees of Wyatt Eye and assisted
Dr. Wyatt in his treatment of Robert. They were familiar with Dr. Wyatt’s history and the
specific restrictions to his license to practice medicine. Despite their actual knowledge of
his full history and licensing restrictions, the willingly participated in Dr. Wyatt’s illegal
medical practice where his restrictions were utterly ignored because they felt that he had
been treated unfair the medical boards in Minnesota, Wyoming and Utah. Moreover, they
felt that Dr. Wyatt had been targeted by competition jealous omg Dr. Wyatt’s mazing skills
and dedication. It was jealous competition that pushed the medical board and
unscrupulous lawyers who brought frivolous suits eventually forcing him to leave the
other states. (See, gofundme page, “Help Dr. Wyatt Heal”, copy attached hereto and
incorporated by reference as “Exhibit 7”).
30. Despite full knowledge of tall he many restrictions to Dr. Wyatt’s medical
license, Mrs. Wyatt and the Doe Defendants never informed Robert or Phawell of any of
the relevant restrictions. Instead, each was a willing participant in Dr. Wyatt’s illegal,
immoral and incompetent medical practice.
31. Before beginning Robert’s treatment, Dr. Wyatt told Robert that, if he was
ever asked by another medical professional who his eye surgeon was, he was not supposed
to give them Dr. Wyatt’s name because Robert had met him at Maliheh, and Robert would
get in trouble. As Dr. Wyatt put it, the need silence was solely for Robert’s protection.
32. On August 31, 2018, Dr. Wyatt, with Mrs. Wyatt acting as his surgical
assistant, and contrary to the express restrictions on his medical license, performed a
cataract surgery at Wyatt Eye on Robert’s left eye. Unbeknownst to Robert, the surgery
that Dr. Wyatt performed is not normally prescribed or performed in the United States
7
and has been described by subsequent medical providers a “third world surgery” no
longer performed in the United States. On information and belief, Dr. Wyatt likely had
to source the intraocular lens used in the surgery from outside of the United States.
Besides being unlicensed and unqualified to perform this surgery, Dr. Wyatt was
specifically restricted from performing it due, in part, to his history of extreme
complications with prior patients. With absolute disregard for Robert’s health and safety,
and to satisfy his own personal greed, Dr. Wyatt performed the surgery. Robert paid Dr.
Wyatt in cash for this surgery.
33. On September 8, 2018, Dr. Wyatt, with Mrs. Wyatt acting as his surgical
assistant, and contrary to the express restrictions on his medical license, performed a
second cataract surgery at Wyatt Eye, this time on Robert’s right eye. Unbeknownst to
Robert, the surgery that Dr. Wyatt prescribed and performed is not normally prescribed
or performed in the United States and has been described by subsequent medical
providers a “third world surgery” no longer performed in the United States. On
information and belief, Dr. Wyatt likely had to source the intraocular lens used in the
surgery from outside of the United States. Besides being unlicensed and unqualified to
perform this surgery, Dr. Wyatt was specifically restricted from performing it due, in part,
to his history of extreme complications with prior patients. With absolute disregard for
Robert’s health and safety, and to satisfy his own personal greed, Dr. Wyatt performed
the surgery. Robert paid Dr. Wyatt for this treatment on a credit card.
34. Unfortunately for Robert, he suffered the same fate as untold dozens of Dr.
Wyatt’s prior patients and he had to return to Dr. Wyatt and Wyatt Eye on September 10,
2018, to address complications from Dr. Wyatt’s shoddy medical practices. Specifically,
8
Dr. Wyatt had used the wrong lens in Robert’s right eye and the eye became infected due
to Dr. Wyatt’s poor practices. Instead of protecting Robert by immediately referring him
to a qualified and licensed medical professional to address the problems Dr. Wyatt had
caused in Robert’s eye, with absolute disregard for Robert’s health and safety, to satisfy
his own personal greed, in an attempt to preclude the discovery of his shoddy and illegal
medical practices, and contrary to the express restrictions on his medical license, Dr.
Wyatt gave Robert an antibiotic injection in his right eye. Besides being unlicensed and
unqualified to perform this procedure, Dr. Wyatt was specifically restricted from
performing it due, in part, to his history of extreme complications with prior patients,
including the same type of problem that Robert then suffered from.
35. On September 12, 2018, Dr. Wyatt, with one of the Doe Defendants acting
as his surgical assistant, and contrary to the express restrictions on his medical license,
performed another surgery at Wyatt Eye on Robert’s right eye to remove the lens that he
placed just days before into Robert’s right eye. Besides being unlicensed and unqualified
to perform this procedure, Dr. Wyatt was specifically restricted from performing it due,
in part, to his history of extreme complications with prior patients, including the same
type of problem that Robert then suffered from.
36. Over the next two months, Robert returned to see Dr. Wyatt at Wyatt Eye
on at least eight different occasions due to worsening vision, pain and infection in his right
eye. Mrs. Wyatt and/or Doe Defendants were present and assisting Dr. Wyatt during
most, if not all, of these visits. In ongoing attempts by the Defendants to preclude the
discovery of Dr. Wyatt’s illegal and shoddy medical practices, and contrary to the express
restrictions on his medical license, Dr. Wyatt gave Robert multiple additional antibiotic
9
injections in his right eye to try and rid Robert of the terrible infection that he had given
him. Besides being unlicensed and unqualified to perform these procedures, Dr. Wyatt
was specifically restricted from performing them due, in part, to his history of extreme
complications with prior patients, including the same types of problems that Robert then
suffered from. Despite the obvious problems in Robert’s eye that were continuing to get
worse, neither Dr. Wyatt, Mrs. Wyatt, nor the Doe Defendants, advised Robert to seek
follow up treatment with a qualified and properly licensed medical practitioner. Instead,
the Defendants repeatedly lied, and they told Robert that his “both eyes ha[d] fully
recovered with excellent anatomic outcome.”
37. On November 20, 2018, Dr. Wyatt, with Mrs. Wyatt again acting as his
surgical assistant, and contrary to the express restrictions on his medical license,
performed yet another illegal and substandard surgery at Wyatt Eye on Robert’s right eye,
this time to replace the lens in Robert’s right eye. As with the prior surgeries,
unbeknownst to Robert, the surgery that Dr. Wyatt prescribed and performed is not
normally prescribed or performed in the United States and has been described by
subsequent medical providers a “third world surgery” no longer performed in the United
States. On information and belief, Dr. Wyatt likely had to source the intraocular lens used
in the surgery from outside of the United States. Besides being unlicensed and
unqualified to perform this procedure, Dr. Wyatt was specifically restricted from
performing it due, in part, to his history of extreme complications with prior patients,
including the same type of problem that Robert then suffered from. The Defendants
continued to hide these facts from Robert so that Dr. Wyatt could continue in his illegal
and substandard medical practice.
10
38. Over the next two weeks, Robert returned to see Dr. Wyatt at Wyatt Eye on
at least seven different occasions due to worsening vision, pain and infection in his right
eye. Mrs. Wyatt and/or Doe Defendants were almost always present and assisting during
most, if not all, of these visits. In an ongoing attempt to rid Robert of the terrible infection
that he had given him, and contrary to the express restrictions on his medical license, Dr.
Wyatt gave Robert multiple additional antibiotic injections in his eye. Despite the obvious
problems in Robert’s eye that were continuing to get worse, neither Dr. Wyatt, Mrs.
Wyatt, nor the Doe Defendants, advised Robert to seek follow up treatment with a
qualified and properly licensed medical practitioner. Besides being unlicensed and
unqualified to perform these procedures, Dr. Wyatt was specifically restricted from
performing it due, in part, to his history of extreme complications with prior patients,
including the same type of problem that Robert then suffered from. The Defendants
continued to hide these facts from Robert so that Dr. Wyatt could continue in his illegal
and substandard medical practice. Moreover, despite their knowledge and opinions to
the contrary, neither Dr. Wyatt, Mrs. Wyatt or the Doe Defendants ever told Robert that,
at that point, the prognosis for Robert’s vision, and even his eye, was poor.
39. On December 20, 2018, 2018, Dr. Wyatt, with Mrs. Wyatt once again acting
as his surgical assistant, and contrary to the express restrictions on his medical license,
performed yet another surgery at Wyatt Eye on Robert’s right eye. Neither Dr. Wyatt nor
Mrs. Wyatt explained the real reason for this surgery was no longer even related to
cataracts, Robert’s initial concerns and reasons for ever coming into contact with Dr.
Wyatt, instead, it was to repair, minimize or cover up the massive and worsening
problems created by Dr. Wyatt and the other Defendants in Robert’s right eye. Besides
11
being unlicensed and unqualified to perform this surgery, Dr. Wyatt was specifically
restricted from performing it due, in part, to his history of extreme complications with
prior patients, including the same type of problems that Robert then suffered from.
40. Over the next two months, the condition of Robert’s right eye continued to
deteriorate. The condition of his eye eventually got so bad that Robert, at Phawell’s
insistence, went to the hospital to seek emergency treatment. While at the emergency
room, the emergency physician, who was shocked at Robert’s appearance, asked who had
performed the surgeries. Scared, and per Dr. Wyatt’s instructions, Robert stated that he
did not know the surgeon’s name. After a period of questioning, and due, in part, to
concerns for safety of others, Phawell finally told the emergency physician that it was Dr.
Wyatt that had operated on Robert’s eyes. The emergency physician told Robert and
Phawell that Robert might lose the vision in this right eye and maybe even the eye itself.
Devasted, Robert was finally referred to a licensed and qualified retinal surgeon by the
emergency physician.
41. When Dr. Wyatt discovered that Robert had gone to the emergency room,
he was furious with Robert and Phawell. Dr. Wyatt was afraid that it would be discovered
that he had been performing unlicensed, illegal, reckless and shoddy surgeries and he
would once again lose his medical license. Instead of protecting Robert, Dr. Wyatt took
steps to protect himself from being held responsible for his terrible medical care of
Robert, and for violating the express conditions on his medical license. Dr. Wyatt told
Robert that Robert would get in trouble because he had met Dr. Wyatt at Maliheh and
that Robert had broken laws. Moreover, Dr. Wyatt told Robert that “the emergency room
is not going to be able to help you. They are not trained for it. You and your wife need to
12
trust me and follow my instructions exactly.” Finally, Dr. Wyatt told him that “[Robert
had] already put [his] vision at more risk by waiting this long.” (See text message between
Robert and Dr. Wyatt, copy attached hereto and incorporated by reference and ‘Exhibit
8”).
42. By the time Robert obtained treatment from a qualified ophthalmologist
and retinal surgeon, Robert was totally blind in the right eye and the vision was not
recoverable. Worse yet, the right eye is permanently disfigured and will likely need to be
completely removed because of the extensive damage caused by Dr. Wyatt’s illegal,
reckless and shoddy treatment. (See current photograph of Robert, copy attached hereto
and incorporated by reference and “Exhibit 9”).
43. In February 2019, while getting treatment with his new providers to try to
save his eye, Robert and Phawell finally learned that Dr. Wyatt wasn’t licensed to perform
any of the multiple surgeries nor any of the numerous other procedures he had performed
on Robert. Had Dr. Wyatt, Mrs. Wyatt or the Doe Defendants advised Robert of any of
the numerous relevant restrictions on Dr. Wyatt’s license, Roberts would never have
undertaken any treatment at Wyatt Eye and he never would have allowed Dr. Wyatt to
perform any of the surgeries or procedures that he did.
44. Once Robert and Phawell learned the truth that Dr. Wyatt was not licensed
to perform any of the multiple surgeries and numerous other procedures he had
performed on Robert, Dr. Wyatt ceased communicating or responding to Robert. In fact,
Dr. Wyatt even refused to provide Robert with copies of his medical records and he failed
to respond to Robert’s letters or engage with Robert in any manner.
13
45. Setting aside the shoddy, reckless and illegal surgeries and procedures
performed by Dr. Wyatt, had he, Mrs. Wyatt or any of the Doe Defendants advised Robert
to seek follow up treatment with a qualified and properly licensed medical practitioner at
an earlier date, Robert’s vision and the eye could have been saved.
46. As a result of the illegal, inadequate and reckless treatment that Dr. Wyatt
provided to Robert, and many others, Dr. Wyatt surrendered his license to practice
medicine in the State of Utah on April 3, 2019. (A copy of the Stipulation and Order
surrendering Dr. Wyatt’s license is attached here to and incorporated by reference as
“Exhibit 10”).
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
(Negligence)
47. Plaintiffs, by and through this reference, hereby incorporates paragraphs
nos. 1 through 46 above, as if fully set forth herein.
48. Defendants owed a legal duty to Plaintiffs to exercise due care in
prescribing, providing and monitoring post treatment medical care to Robert.
49. Defendants breached this duty by, among other things, failing to
appropriately prescribe proper medical care, failing to obtain informed consent, failing to
properly perform medical treatment, performing medical treatment they were not
authorized or qualified to perform, using substandard medical procedures and products
and failing to notify Plaintiffs of the true status of Robert’s condition.
50. As a direct and proximate result of the negligent and careless acts and
omissions of Defendants set forth generally above, and other negligent and careless acts
14
and omissions that discovery may reveal, Robert lost the vision in his right eye and likely
the eye itself, and Plaintiffs have suffered damages as alleged herein.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
(Informed Consent)
51. Plaintiffs, by and through this reference, hereby incorporates paragraphs
nos. 1 through 50 above, as if fully set forth herein.
52. Defendants established a physician-patient relationship with Robert.
53. Defendants provided care to Robert that posed a substantial and significant
risk of causing serious harm to Robert, including surgical procedures that were not
appropriate for Robert, and medical care outside the medical license of Dr. Wyatt.
54. Robert was not informed of the substantial and significant risks in
undergoing the medical care Defendants recommended, or given reasonable alternatives,
such as a referral to competent and properly licensed medical providers to give
appropriate treatment to Robert.
55. A reasonable person in Robert’s position would not have consented to the
care Defendant recommended after having been informed of the limitations on Dr.
Wyatt’s medical license, and the inappropriate nature of the surgical procedures on a
patient like Robert.
56. Defendants’ medical care was the cause of Plaintiffs’ harms and losses.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
(Medical Battery)
57. Plaintiffs, by and through this reference, hereby incorporates paragraphs
nos. 1 through 56 above, as if fully set forth herein.
15
58. Robert consented to medical procedures with Dr. Wyatt, but only based on
false representations that Dr. Wyatt was properly licensed and qualified to perform the
procedures. Had Dr. Wyatt, Mrs. Wyatt or the Doe Defendants informed Robert of Dr.
Wyatt’s licensing restrictions, he would not have consented to any of the treatment or
procedures.
59. Defendants proceeded to perform the medical procedures on Robert
without this licensing and qualification conditions having occurred.
60. Defendants intended to perform the treatment and procedures with
knowledge that the licensing and qualification conditions had not occurred.
61. Plaintiffs were harmed when Defendants performed the medical procedures
on Robert.
62. Defendants’ conduct was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiffs’ harm.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
(Civil Battery)
63. Plaintiffs, by and through this reference, hereby incorporates paragraphs
nos. 1 through 62 above, as if fully set forth herein.
64. Defendants intentionally touched the body of Robert in a harmful or
offensive manner without Robert’s consent, in that Defendants provided medical care
they knew was inappropriate for Robert, administered by insufficiently licensed medical
personnel, without informing Robert of those facts.
65. This conduct was a direct and proximate result of Plaintiffs’ damages.
16
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
(Fraud)
66. Plaintiffs, by and through this reference, hereby incorporates paragraphs
nos. 1 through 65 above, as if fully set forth herein.
67. Defendants made representations to the Plaintiffs that Dr. Wyatt was
properly licensed and qualified to treat Robert.
68. Whether Dr. Wyatt was licensed and qualified to treat Robert was a material
fact.
69. Dr. Wyatt was not properly licensed nor qualified to treat Robert’s
condition.
70. The Defendants knew that Dr. Wyatt was not properly licensed nor qualified
to treat Robert’s condition.
71. Had Dr. Wyatt, Mrs. Wyatt or the Doe Defendants informed Robert of Dr.
Wyatt’s licensing restrictions, he would not have consented to any of the treatment
procedures.
72. The false representation that Dr. Wyatt was licensed and qualified was
made for the purpose of inducing the Plaintiffs to rely upon it.
73. The Plaintiffs rightfully relied on the Defendants’ false representations.
74. The Plaintiffs were ignorant of the falsity of the Defendants’
representations.
75. The Plaintiffs were harmed by their reliance on the Defendants’ false
representations.
17
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
(Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress)
76. Plaintiffs, by and through this reference, hereby incorporates paragraphs
nos. 1 through 75, above, as if fully set forth herein.
77. The actions and conduct of Defendants are outrageous.
78. Defendants, by their actions and inactions, intended to cause emotional
distress in the Plaintiffs and/or acted with reckless disregard of the probability of causing
emotional distress to Plaintiffs.
79. Plaintiffs suffered severe or extreme emotional distress including pain of
body and mind and will likely incur expenses for medical attention and treatment which
was proximately caused by Defendants’ outrageous conduct.
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
(Loss of Consortium)
80. Plaintiffs, by and through this reference, hereby incorporates paragraphs
nos. 1 through 79 above, as if fully set forth herein.
81. As a result of the Defendants’ conduct, Robert was severely injured and
permanently disfigured.
82. As a result of Robert’s injuries, he cannot provide his wife, Phawell, with the
same care, love, affection, companionship, comfort and society that were provided before
his interactions with the Defendants.
EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANTS
(Gross Negligence and Punitive Damages)
83. Plaintiffs, by and through this reference, hereby incorporates paragraphs
nos. 1 through 82 above, as if fully set forth herein.
18
84. This action arose as a consequence of Defendants’ conduct.
85. Defendants conduct throughout their entire interaction with Plaintiffs
indicates Defendants’ gross negligence, malice and intentional or reckless conduct. These
actions and inactions manifest a knowing and reckless indifference toward, and a
disregard of the rights of Plaintiffs and others.
86. Such acts and conduct entitle Plaintiffs to an award of punitive damages
against Defendants for reckless, intentional and wanton conduct.
NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DR. WYATT INDIVIDUALLY
(Medical Malpractice)
87. Plaintiffs, by and through this reference, hereby incorporates paragraphs
nos. 1 through 86, above, as if fully set forth herein.
88. A doctor patient relationship existed between Robert and Dr. Wyatt.
89. Dr. Wyatt owed a duty of care to Robert.
90. Dr. Wyatt breached the duty of care and acted, or failed to act, according to
the accepted standard of care for his specialty and in the geographic area.
91. Dr. Wyatt’s breach of the standard of care caused the Robert’s injuries.
92. As a direct and proximate result of Dr. Wyatt’s negligence, Robert sustained
serious injuries, causing pain and suffering both physically and mentally, in an amount to
be determined.
93. As a further direct and proximate result of Dr. Wyatt’s negligence, Plaintiffs
incurred medical expenses.
19
TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST WYATT EYE
(Respondeat Superior)
94. Plaintiffs, by and through this reference, hereby incorporates paragraphs
nos. 1 through 93, above, as if fully set forth herein.
95. Between June of 2018 and February of 2019, Wyatt Eye, by and through its
authorized agents, the Defendants, were prescribing and rendering care and treatment to
Robert.
96. Wyatt Eye, by and through its authorized agents, owed Plaintiffs a duty to
exercise reasonable care in prescribing and rendering care to Robert.
97. Wyatt Eye, by and through its authorized agents, breached those duties by
failing to exercise reasonable care in prescribing and rendering care to Robert.
98. Wyatt Eye, by and through its authorized agents, also breached those duties
by other acts of negligence yet to be discovered.
99. Wyatt Eye’s breaches of duties to Plaintiffs was the proximate cause of
Plaintiffs injuries.
100. As a direct and proximate result of Wyatt Eye’s fault, Plaintiffs have suffered
injuries and damages as alleged herein.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment in their favor and against
Defendants, in sums to be determined at trial, for the following:
1. For past and future economic expenses in an amount to be proven at trial;
2. For general damages and for past and future pain and suffering in an
amount to be proven at trial, but not less than $10,000,000.00;
20
3. For punitive damages in an amount to be proven at trial, but no less than
one times and no more than ten times their economic and general damages; and
4. For such other and further relief as may be justified in the premises or which
Plaintiffs may be entitled to by law.
JURY DEMAND
Plaintiffs request a trial by jury and submit the required fee herewith.
Dated this 14th day of October, 2019.
LANCE ANDREW, P.C.
/s/ Dustin Lance
Dustin Lance
Jessica A. Andrew
Attorneys for Plaintiff
21
