IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA CIVIL DIVISION

TERRY G. BOLLEA, also

known as HULK HOGAN, Plaintiff,
fa

LASER SPINE INSTITUTE, LLC, JAMES S. ST. Louis, D.O.; KEVIN

L. SCOTT, M.D.; and ZOLTAN

BERECZKI, JR., D.O.

Defendants.
_ /
V

f\
\
\

S
/ \
wj

IF
r= OT1 O _

*:*/
Omi

tr. ~z

COMPLAINT -

QJEi 1 %pSckJ - -^ O = y.'--y rn

d "

Plaintiff TERRY G. BOLLEA a/k/a HULK HOGAN (hereafter "BOLLEA"), ^ft^deifignedo O o \v:! op o attorney, sues LASER SPINE INSTITUTE, LLC ("LASER SPINE" or "LSI"); JAMES SfiST. L U I S , 'DO D.O. ("ST. LOUIS"); KEVIN L. SCOTT, M.D. ("SCOTT"), and ZOLTAN BERECZKI, JR., D.O. ("BERECZKI"), collectively "DEFENDANTS", and states:

ALLEGATIONS COMMON To ALL COUNTS

1. 2. At all material times, BOLLEA was a resident of Pinellas County, Florida. This is an action for medical malpractice claiming damages in excess of the jurisdictional

limits of this Court ($15,000), exclusive of costs and interest. All actions material and relevant to this litigation occurred pursuant to the practice of medicine in the State of Florida. 3. This is also an action for and the unauthorized publication of name or likeness pursuant

to Florida Statutes, 540.08, claiming damages in excess of the jurisdictional limits of this Court ($15,000), exclusive of costs and interest. All actions material and relevant to this litigation occurred in the State of Florida.
-1 -

4.

At all material times, ST. LOUIS was licensed as an osteopathic physician in Florida,

was practicing medicine in Hillsborough County, Florida, and held himself out to BOLLEA and others as capable of rendering appropriate medical care, including surgical treatment of the lumbar spine. ST. LOUIS is not Board Certified by the American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery which is the recognized specialty board for orthopedic surgeons, nor is he Board Certified by the American Board of Neurological Surgery which is the recognized specialty board for neurosurgeons. At all material times, ST. LOUIS was a resident of Clearwater, Pinellas County, Florida. 5. At all material times, SCOTT was licensed as a physician in Florida, was practicing

medicine in Hillsborough County, Florida, and held himself out to BOLLEA and others as capable of rendering appropriate medical care, including surgical treatment of the lumbar spine. At all material times, SCOTT was and is a resident of Palm Harbor, Pinellas County, Florida. 6. At all material times, BERECZKI was licensed as an osteopathic physician in Florida,

was practicing medicine in Hillsborough County, Florida, and held himself out to BOLLEA and others as capable of rendering appropriate medical care, including surgical treatment of the lumbar spine. However, BERECZKI is neither Board Certified by the American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery which is the recognized specialty board for orthopedic surgeons, nor is he Board Certified by the American Board of Neurological Surgery which is the recognized specialty board for neurosurgeons. At all material times, BERECZKI was and is a resident of Tarpon Springs, Pinellas County, Florida. 7. At all material times, LASER SPINE INSTITUTE was organized as a Florida For-Profit

Limited Liability Company. 8. Plaintiff has complied with all conditions precedent to the filing of this action including

,the filing of a verified opinion from a Board Certified Neurosurgeon familiar with the facts and records in this case concluding that reasonable grounds exist for bringing this action, pre-suit investigation ( 766.203, Fla. Stat.) and notice ( 766.106, Fla. Stat.) on all Defendants.

-2-

9.

As required by 766.104, Fla. Stat., counsel for Plaintiff has conducted a reasonable

investigation concerning the claims asserted here. The Certificate of Counsel to this effect is incorporated below. 10. At all times material, BOLLEA was a professional athlete and entertainer who was also

known as the wrestler "Hulk Hogan". In addition to having been an athlete, BOLLEA had also developed a career in entertainment and acting in both movies and television. Consequently, BOLLEA's physical condition was of paramount importance to his ability to earn an income. DEFENDANTS were aware of these facts. 11. At all times material, LASER SPINE INSTITUTE direct marketed itself to the general At all material times,

public as a provider of minimally invasive outpatient surgical procedures to persons suffering from neck and back pain. They did so by drawing comparisons between the alternative endoscopic procedures that it provides to patients and open procedures more traditionally provided to patients. At all times material, LASER SPINE did not provide any open surgical procedures which could address BOLLEA's conditions including degenerative scoliosis, spondylolisthesis, severe spinal stenosis and decreased disc space, and therefore it did not have the capability to provide standard of care treatment for those conditions to BOLLEA. Furthermore, at no time relevant to this case did any defendant maintain staff privileges at any hospital which would allow any of them to perform any surgical procedure including open surgical procedures such as a fusion. 12. LASER SPINE, through its direct to the public marketing campaign, attempts to create

the impression that its alternative endoscopic treatments are comparable to and provide even more effective results than conventional open fusion procedures by claiming that it is able to provide an "advanced alternative to fusions and hardware", and that it is able to do so with no hospitalizations, smaller incisions, less blood loss, no general anesthesia, "cutting edge medical technology", shorter recovery times, and a return to normal activity within days while incorrectly claiming that they can achieve the same results as open fusions.

-3-

13.

At the same time, LASER SPINE'S direct to the public marketing efforts also attempt to

scare patients away from undergoing recommended and needed open procedures such as fusions by telling the public that these procedures require extensive hospitalizations, much longer recovery times, greater blood loss, longer "down time", and greater costs while at the same time being less effective. 14. The direct to the public marketing tactics employed by LASER SPINE, however,

misstate the facts and mislead the general public. For example, LASER SPINE fails to tell the public through its marketing and scare tactics that its alternative outpatient endoscopic spinal procedures only temporarily treat symptoms and cannot treat and provide a long term solution for many of the underlying conditions which cause chronic and recurring back pain such as scoliosis, spondylolisthesis, and decreased disc space. In its direct to the public marketing and advertising, LASER SPINE fails to inform the public it can only treat the resulting symptoms of those conditions, and the relief obtained, if any, will only be temporary. LASER SPINE also fails to tell the public and its patients, such as BOLLEA, that any benefit related to the laser ablation procedures advertised by LASER SPINE will only be temporary as the nerve endings which are burned off by this procedure regenerate over time, and there is no clinical basis to conclude that it can serve as a permanent solution to such injuries. 15. LASER SPINE, through its direct to the public advertising and marketing misleads the

general public and its patients regarding the effectiveness of its treatments in addressing the cause of patient back pain and related symptoms by overstating the capabilities of the non-hospital based outpatient procedures it provides, attempting to scare persons from seeking more indicated open procedures, and not providing an unbiased, medically accurate, and complete explanation of the relative capabilities of each procedure option available to treat patients, such as BOLLEA, who are suffering from scoliosis, spondylolisthesis, and decreased disc space. 16. At all times material, LASER SPINE INSTITUTE employed the same tactics in

counseling patients that is used to advertise its services to potential customers and patients. Specifically, LASER SPINE advises patients, including BOLLEA, that they do not need open procedures such as lumbar fusions, and that it can provide a long lasting and permanent remedy for their symptoms by
-4-

performing what it describes as short, simple and less invasive procedures that do not require hospitalization, while falsely claiming that their procedures will produce a similar result. However, in both marketing and on an individual level, LASER SPINE fails to inform patients, as they failed to do when providing care to BOLLEA, that unlike traditional fusion procedures, their procedures do not and cannot address anatomic abnormalities such as scoliosis, spondylolisthesis, spinal stenosis and lost disc space, and without addressing those underlying conditions, symptoms will most likely return and result in at least the same level of disability. 17. At all times material to this case, DEFENDANTS were aware that for the several years

leading up to February 2009, BOLLEA had suffered from progressively worsening lumbar spine related pain, and that BOLLEA had essentially exhausted all conservative and non-surgical options to obtain relief from his symptoms, but with only temporary or no relief. 18. At all times material to this case, DEFENDANTS were aware that on February 2, 2009,

BOLLEA underwent MRI studies of his lumbar spine which revealed that he was suffering from multiple thoracic and lumbar spinal abnormalities including, but not limited to, lumbar degenerative scoliosis, spondylolisthesis, multiple bulging discs and severe spinal stenosis. At all times material to this case, DEFENDANTS were also aware that these conditions were causing BOLLEA to suffer from severe back and leg pain which was preventing and/or limiting him from working within his profession. 19. At all times material to this case, DEFENDANTS were aware that on or about February

13, 2009, BOLLEA presented to a Board Certified Orthopedic Spine Surgeon in Safety Harbor, Pinellas County, Florida, with complaints of low back pain, radiating bilateral lower extremity pain, and numbness, and that these symptoms had been progressively worsening over the prior eleven years to the point that he was becoming severely debilitated and unable to work. This Spinal Surgeon assessed BOLLEA as having lumbar instability, degenerative lumbar scoliosis, lumbar stenosis and lumbar radiculopathy. At all times material to this case, DEFENDANTS were aware that the Safety Harbor Spinal Surgeon recommended that BOLLEA undergo an open multilevel lumbar laminectomy and fusion.

-5-

r
20. At all times material to this case, DEFENDANTS were further aware that on or about February 24, 2009, BOLLEA presented to the Division Chief and Professor of Neurosurgery at the University of South Florida for evaluation of his lumbar spine symptoms. Based upon BOLLEA'S several year history of lumbar related symptoms, his lack of relief from several years of conservative treatment, and his MRI findings, it was also his assessment that BOLLEA needed to undergo an open lumbar spinal fusion surgery to address the cause of his symptoms. He referred BOLLEA within the University of South Florida, Department of Neurosurgery for further consultation. 21. At all times material to this case, DEFENDANTS were aware that on or about February

24, 2009, based on the above referral, BOLLEA presented to the Director of Complex and Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery in the Department of Neurosurgery at the University of South Florida for evaluation of his lumbar spine symptoms. Based upon BOLLEA'S several year history of lumbar related symptoms, his lack of relief from several years of conservative treatment, and his MRI findings, a third Spine Surgeon recommended that BOLLEA undergo an open lumbar spinal fusion surgery to address the cause of his symptoms, and he provided BOLLEA with several open surgical options including an anterior inter-body fusion with supplemental instrumentation. 22. At all times material to this case, DEFENDANTS were aware that on or about February

24, 2009, and pursuant to the advice given by all three of the above referenced Spine Surgeons, BOLLEA agreed to schedule and proceed with an anterior inter-body fusion with supplemental instrumentation in an attempt to correct the abnormalities which were the cause of his symptoms including, but not limited to scoliosis, spondylolisthesis, narrowed disc space, and spinal stenosis. 23. While driving back from the consultations with the aforementioned surgeons at the

University of South Florida, and after being informed of BOLLEA's scheduled open lumbar inter-body fusion surgery, BOLLEA was urged by a non-medically trained neighbor and friend to get an opinion from LASER SPINE for minimally invasive surgery before undergoing a fusion procedure at the University of South Florida. Therefore, while driving back from his consultation with the aforementioned surgeons at the University of South Florida, BOLLEA presented to LASER SPINE INSTITUTE, LLC.
-6-

There, he was immediately, and without appointment, consulted by ST. LOUIS, to discuss his treatment recommendations. BOLLEA advised ST. LOUIS that he continued to experience lumbar related pain and symptoms on a level of "10/10" even after having exhausted all conservative efforts to alleviate his symptoms. ST. LOUIS was aware that all prior conservative measures had already failed, that BOLLEA was previously advised by three separate Board Certified Spinal Surgeons that he needed an open lumbar fusion procedure, and that BOLLEA had already agreed to undergo an open lumbar fusion and he was scheduled for the same. 24. DEFENDANTS knew or should have known that based upon BOLLEA's presenting

symptoms, history, lack of success with prior treatment, and radiographic findings that the endoscopic procedures that they marketed to the general public and which they were capable of providing to BOLLEA (such as thermal ablations, rhizotomy, foraminotomy, laminotomy, facetectomy, and

percutaneous discectomy) would be ineffective to provide meaningful relief of his symptoms, and that he needed to have an open spinal fusion procedure in order to address his complaints. However, LASER

SPINE is only capable of providing outpatient endoscopic procedures because it is not licensed by the State of Florida to perform the open fusion procedure that BOLLEA needed to address his complaints. 25. On February 25, 2009, after having seen his lumbar MRIs, and having been made aware

of BOLLEA's lumbar spine condition, symptoms, and treatment history, ST. LOUIS strongly recommended that BOLLEA forego his previously scheduled open lumbar fusion surgery, and strongly persuaded him to undergo the endoscopic "minimally invasive surgery" marketed and offered by LASER SPINE. ST. LOUIS convinced BOLLEA not to undergo the previously agreed to open procedure by telling him in no uncertain terms that he "did not need a fusion", that he could "fix" him, and that he would be back to his normal wrestling activities quickly after being treated at LASER SPINE. 26. ST. LOUIS, further advised BOLLEA that the traditional open lumbar fusion procedure

recommended by above referenced Spine Surgeons were "extensive" and "last resort" procedures with a high risk for complication and that it would leave him unable to work in his profession in the future. ST. LOUIS, however, in describing the open lumbar fusion procedures, failed to inform BOLLEA that he had
-7-

not personally performed an open spinal procedure in nearly 10 years. Therefore, because ST. LOUIS lacked any recent experience, he was unfamiliar with the likely outcomes from open lumbar fusions, and he could not accurately advise BOLLEA of the risks involved with those procedures. 27. Relying upon the sales pitch which was made to appear as "medical advice" provided by

ST. LOUIS, BOLLEA decided not to go forward with the open spinal fusion which was to be performed by the Spine Surgeons at the University of South Florida, and instead he agreed to allow ST. LOUIS and SCOTT to perform an endoscopic procedure offered by LASER SPINE. 28. Over the next nineteen (19) months ST. LOUIS, SCOTT and later BERECZKJ performed

multiple unnecessary procedures which DEFENDANTS knew or should have known could not provide a meaningful remedy for BOLLEA's condition, yet repeatedly convincing him that the procedures could provide meaningful permanent relief of his debilitating symptoms. DEFENDANTS knew or should have known that continued and repeated recommendations for useless endoscopic procedures would further delay BOLLEA's recovery and prevent him from realizing his full earning capacity. 29. On or about February 28, 2009, after being convinced to do so by ST. LOUIS and

SCOTT, BOLLEA underwent a "Destruction By Thermal Ablation Bilateral Sacroiliac Joint Nerves and Paravertebral Facet Joint Nerves Bilateral L2/3, Bilateral L3/4, Right L 4/5, and Bilateral L5/S1" performed endoscopically by SCOTT. During that same endoscopic procedure, ST. LOUIS performed a "Lumbar Laminotomy (Hemilaminectomy) with Foraminotomy, Including Partial Facetectomy with Decompression of the Nerve Roots Left L4/5". 30. Notwithstanding the prior treatment noted above as being rendered by ST. LOUIS and

SCOTT, BOLLEA did not experience anything but temporary superficial relief of 2 or 3 weeks duration and no significant relief of his symptoms, and he continued to complain to DEFENDANTS of severe and debilitating back pain, leg pain, and other symptoms. Therefore, DEFENDANTS convinced BOLLEA to undergo another endoscopic procedure, but they did not recommend that he undergo an open lumbar fusion procedure. Relying upon the advice provided by DEFENDANTS, on or about May 21, 2009, BOLLEA underwent further "minimally invasive" outpatient endoscopic procedures including a
-8-

"Destruction By Thermal Ablation Paravertebral Facet Joint Nerves Left L2/3" and a "Lumbar Laminotomy (Hemilaminectomy) with Foraminotomy Including Partial Facetectomy and Decompression of the Nerve Roots Left L3/4 with Percutaneous Lysis of Adhesions" performed by ST. LOUIS and SCOTT. 31. Notwithstanding the prior treatment noted above as being rendered by ST. LOUIS and

SCOTT, BOLLEA still did not experience anything but temporary superficial relief of 2 or 3 weeks duration and no significant relief of his symptoms, and he continued to complain to DEFENDANTS of severe and debilitating back pain, leg pain, and other symptoms. Therefore, DEFENDANTS convinced BOLLEA to undergo another endoscopic procedure, but they did not recommend that he undergo an open lumbar fusion procedure. Relying upon the advice provided by DEFENDANTS, on or about October 12, 2009, BOLLEA underwent "Endoscopic Surgical Rhizotomies of the Facet Joints with Posterior Capsulectomy and Facet Joint Arthroplasty at Right L4/5 and Bilateral L5/S1" performed by SCOTT. 32. Notwithstanding the prior treatment noted above as being rendered by ST. LOUIS and

SCOTT, BOLLEA again did not experience any significant relief of his symptoms, and he continued to complain to DEFENDANTS of severe and debilitating back pain, leg pain, and other symptoms. Therefore, DEFENDANTS convinced BOLLEA to undergo another endoscopic procedure, but they did not recommend that he undergo an open lumbar fusion procedure. Relying upon the advice provided by DEFENDANTS, on or about May 27, 2010, BOLLEA underwent further "minimally invasive" outpatient endoscopic procedures including a "Percutaneous Discectomy, L3/4" performed by BERECZKI. 33. Notwithstanding the prior treatment noted above as being rendered by ST. LOUIS,

SCOTT and BERECZKI, BOLLEA still did not experience any significant relief of his symptoms, and he continued to complain to DEFENDANTS of severe and debilitating back pain, leg pain, and other symptoms. Therefore, DEFENDANTS convinced BOLLEA to undergo another endoscopic procedure, but they did not recommend that he undergo an open lumbar fusion procedure. Relying upon the advice provided by DEFENDANTS, on or about June 30, 2010, BOLLEA underwent a "Percutaneous Discectomy, L4/5" performed by BERECZKI.
-9-

r
34. Notwithstanding the prior treatment noted above as being rendered by ST. LOUIS, SCOTT and BERECZKI, BOLLEA did not experience any significant relief of his symptoms, and he continued to complain to DEFENDANTS of severe and debilitating back pain, leg pain, and other symptoms. Therefore, DEFENDANTS convinced BOLLEA to undergo another endoscopic procedure, but they did not recommend that he undergo an open lumbar fusion procedure. Relying upon the advice provided by DEFENDANTS, on or about August 12, 2010, BOLLEA underwent a "Percutaneous Discectomy, L2/3" performed by BERECZKI. 35. The surgical treatment provided by DEFENDANTS did not provide relief to BOLLEA's

symptoms and resulted in a continuing worsening in his overall condition. Notwithstanding, its treatment being unnecessary and ineffective, LASER SPINE billed BOLLEA and his health insurer multiple six figure sums for these medically unneeded procedures. ST. LOUIS, unknown to BOLLEA at the time, who counseled and convinced BOLLEA to undergo these procedures, and who provided treatment to BOLLEA, at all material times had a substantial ownership interest and economic position in LASER SPINE. 36. In December 2010, and after nearly two years of failed, ineffective, and unnecessary

treatment with DEFENDANTS, BOLLEA returned to the physicians at the University of South Florida who performed an Anterior Lumbar Inter-body Fusion (L2 - L3, L3 - L4, L4 - L5) with Posterior Instrumentation and Scoliosis Correction. Post-operatively, BOLLEA experienced significant relief from his symptoms, and he was able to return to his professional activities approximately 3 months following this surgery. Unfortunately, due to the nearly two year delay in his recovery caused by the negligent care and treatment provided by DEFENDANTS, BOLLEA was unable to pursue income opportunities that were presented to him while he was being treated by the DEFENDANTS. totaled in to the multiple millions of dollars. 37. As a result of DEFENDANTS' convincing BOLLEA to forego the surgical treatment that These missed opportunities

he needed in favor of the multiple unnecessary and ineffective surgeries offered by LASER SPINE, he experienced a delay in his recovery of nearly two years. Consequently, BOLLEA'S ability to work as a

-10-

r
wrestler and entertainer was severely limited due to his continued symptoms. Those symptoms would have resolved much earlier had DEFENDANTS complied with the standard of care. In that time,

BOLLEA had missed out on multiple millions of dollars in opportunities to earn income within his profession due to disability because DEFENDANTS continued to cause him to needlessly suffer severe back pain, leg pain, and other related symptoms. In total, BOLLEA has suffered a provable loss of income and income earning opportunities totaling well in excess of fifty million dollars ($50,000,000) in the past and continuing into the future. 38. In addition to his loss of earning and earning potential, BOLLEA has also had to endure

continued, debilitating, and unnecessary pain over the course of nearly two years, and beyond. The repeated additional, but unnecessary and ineffective surgeries performed by DEFENDANTS resulted in significant bone loss and increased spinal instability making BOLLEA'S subsequent fusion procedure more challenging, more likely to fail and less effective than it would have been had DEFENDANTS not performed their unnecessary and ineffective procedures. Consequently, BOLLEA will continue to

experience more physical pain and suffering in the future due to the negligence of the DEFENDANTS. 39. As a direct and proximate result of the negligent acts and/or omissions of

DEFENDANTS jointly and severally, as stated in the counts below, the following damages have been sustained, both in the past and in the future: BOLLEA sustained the damages listed in the previous Paragraphs 36, 37, and 38, as well as physical pain and suffering, bodily injury, disability, disfigurement, loss or diminution of earnings and earning capacity, aggravation of previously existing conditions; and/or medical and related expenses incurred in seeking treatment for these injuries. 40. BOLLEA did not become aware that the multiple "minimally invasive" procedures

performed by the DEFENDANTS at LASER SPINE may have been essentially unnecessary and/or performed in a negligent fashion until being made aware of an article published on Bloomberg.com entitled "Laser Spine Surgery More Profitable Than Google Sees Complaints", written by David Armstrong, and attached hereto as exhibit "A" to this Complaint.

-11 -

COUNT I NEGLIGENCE OF JAMES S. ST. Louis, P.O.

41. 42. Plaintiff re-alleges and adopts Paragraphs 1-40. At all material times, ST. LOUIS, in rendering medical services to BOLLEA, had a duty

to exercise that level of care which is recognized as appropriate by prudent similar health care providers. 43. ST. LOUIS breached this duty to BOLLEA in the following but not limiting respects: A) convincing BOLLEA to forego the more indicated and previously agreed to option of lumbar fusion in favor of procedures which could not address the causes of his symptoms; B) performing procedures on BOLLEA which he knew or should have known could not provide Bollea with relief; C) failing to provide proper informed consent at the beginning of his treatment with LASER SPINE; D) misleading BOLLEA to believe that the procedures that were proposed could provide long term relief for his symptoms; E) continuing to perform procedures for BOLLEA which he knew or should have known to not be capable of providing any significant long-term relief under the circumstances of his case, and which failed to previously provide relief; F) not addressing BOLLEA's spinal instability, scoliosis, spinal stenosis and disc space loss as a part of his treatment plan; G) failing to obtain proper informed consent prior to the start of each procedure he performed; and H) 44. the breach. failing to recommend lumbar fusion;

Had ST. LOUIS met the standard of care, BOLLEA would not have suffered harm due to

-12-

COUNT II VICARIOUS LIABILITY OF LASER SPINE INSTITUTE FOR JAMES S. ST. Louis. P.O.
45. 46. Plaintiff re-alleges and adopts Paragraphs 1-40 and 42 - 44. At all material times, ST. LOUIS was acting as an agent, apparent agent, ostensible

agent, servant, borrowed servant, and/or employee of LASER SPINE, and was acting within the course and scope of this agency, service, and/or employment, with LASER SPINE. 47. LASER SPINE, through ST. LOUIS, owed a duty to BOLLEA to provide that level of

care which is recognized as appropriate by prudent similar health care providers. 48. 49. The conduct of LASER SPINE, through ST. LOUIS, represents a breach in this duty. Had LASER SPINE, through ST. LOUIS, met the standard of care, BOLLEA would not

have suffered harm due to the breach.

COUNT III NEGLIGENCE OF KEVIN L. SCOTT. M.D.

50. 51. Plaintiff re-alleges and adopts Paragraphs 1- 40. At all material times, SCOTT, in rendering medical services to BOLLEA, had a duty to

exercise that level of care which is recognized as appropriate by prudent similar health care providers. 52. SCOTT breached this duty to BOLLEA in the following but not limiting respects: A) convincing BOLLEA to forego the more indicated and previously agreed to option of lumbar fusion in favor of procedures which could not address the causes of his symptoms; B) performing procedures on BOLLEA which he knew or should have known could not provide BOLLEA with relief; C) failing to provide proper informed consent at the beginning of his treatment with Laser Spine Institute;

-13-

r
D) misleading BOLLEA to believe that the procedures that were proposed could provide long term relief for his symptoms; E) continuing to perform procedures for BOLLEA which were known or which he should have known to not be capable of providing any significant long-term relief under the circumstances of his case, and which had to failed to previously provide relief; and F) not addressing BOLLEA's spinal instability, spinal stenosis and disc space loss as a part of his treatment plan; and G) failing to obtain proper informed consent prior to the start of each procedure he performed. 53. breach. Had SCOTT met the standard of care, BOLLEA would not have suffered harm due to the

COUNT IV VICARIOUS LIABILITY OF LASER SPINE INSTITUTE FOR KEVIN L. SCOTT. M.D.
54. 55. Plaintiff re-alleges and adopts Paragraphs 1 - 40 and 51-53. At all material times, SCOTT was acting as an agent, apparent agent, ostensible agent,

servant, borrowed servant, and/or employee of LASER SPINE, and was acting within the course and scope of this agency, service, and/or employment, with LASER SPINE. 56. LASER SPINE, through SCOTT, owed a duty to BOLLEA to provide that level of care

which is recognized as appropriate by prudent similar health care providers. 57. 58. The conduct of LASER SPINE, through SCOTT, represents a breach in this duty. Had LASER SPINE, through SCOTT, met the standard of care, BOLLEA would not

have suffered harm due to the breach.

-14-

COUNT V NEGLIGENCE OF ZOLTAN BERECZKI, JR, P.O.

59. 60. Plaintiff re-alleges and adopts Paragraphs 1- 40. At all material times, BERECZKI, in rendering medical services to BOLLEA, had a duty

to exercise that level of care which is recognized as appropriate by prudent similar health care providers. 61. BERECZKI breached this duty to BOLLEA in the following but not limiting respects: A) performing procedures on Bollea which he knew or should have known could not provide Bollea with relief; B) misleading Bollea to believe that the procedures that were proposed could provide long term relief for his symptoms; C) continuing to perform procedures for Bollea which were known or which he should have known to not be capable of providing any significant long-term relief under the circumstances of his case, and which had to failed to previously provide relief; and D) not addressing Bollea's spinal instability, spinal stenosis and disc space loss as a part of his treatment plan; and E) failing to obtain proper informed consent prior to the start of each procedure he performed. 62. to the breach. Had BERECZKI met the standard of care, BOLLEA would not have suffered harm due

COUNT VI VICARIOUS LIABILITY OF LASER SPINE INSTITUTE FOR ZOLTAN BERECZKI. JR.. P.O.
63. Plaintiff re-alleges and adopts Paragraphs 1- 40 and 60 - 62.

-15-

r
64. At all material times, BERECZKI was acting as an agent, apparent agent, ostensible agent, servant, borrowed servant, and/or employee of LASER SPINE, and was acting within the course and scope of this agency, service, and/or employment, with LASER SPINE. 65. LASER SPINE, through BERECZKI, owed a duty to BOLLEA to provide that level of

care which is recognized as appropriate by prudent similar health care providers. 66. 67. The conduct of LASER SPINE, through BERECZKI, represents a breach in this duty. Had LASER SPINE, through BERECZKI, met the standard of care, BOLLEA would not

have suffered harm due to the breach.

COUNT VII UNAUTHORIZED PUBLICATION OF NAME OR LIKENESS BY LASER SPINE INSTITUTE

68. 69. . Plaintiff re-alleges and adopts Paragraphs 1- 40. Sometime after BOLLEA became a patient of DEFENDANTS, LASER SPINE

published, printed, and displayed to the general public promotional and advertising materials featuring the name and likeness of BOLLEA. These materials included a photograph of BOLLEA, identifying him by his professional name - "Hulk Hogan", inferred that he was a patient of LASER SPINE, and quoted him as allegedly saying "LSI, thanks for getting me back on track!" BOLLEA's name or likeness was published by LASER SPINE without his permission within multiple promotional materials. In fact, the quote came from a personal photo he signed with the above quote as a personal favor for an employee of LASER SPINE on the day of and immediately following his initial procedure, and he never intended that it be used for any commercial purpose. When BOLLEA became aware of the misappropriation of his likeness, he advised LSI to immediately remove the same from its marketing publications. See Attached Letter as Exhibit "B". 70. The publication of BOLLEA's name, photograph and alleged statement was done for

purposes of trade, commercial purposes and advertising. Specifically, the unauthorized public use of

-16-

BOLLEA'S name or likeness by LASER SPINE was done for the purpose of attracting potential patients to retain the medical services of LASER SPINE, and to increase its revenues. 71. LASER SPINE did not obtain BOLLEA'S express written or oral consent to use his

photograph, name, or likeness in its advertising materials, nor did it obtain such consent from any other person, firm or corporation authorized to license the commercial use of his name or likeness. Once

LASER SPINE's actions became known to BOLLEA, he immediately requested that it remove this unauthorized quote and likeness from its website and marketing. 72. Due to the unauthorized publishing, printing, and displaying to the general public

promotional and advertising materials featuring the name and likeness of BOLLEA, LASER SPINE received revenues from patients. 73. BOLLEA was never compensated for the use of his photograph, name, or likeness in

LASER SPINE'S advertising materials even though LASER SPINE used his likeness to attract patients and to earn profits. In addition, BOLLEA has suffered advertising injury including, but not limited to, an invasion of his privacy, the misleading public perception of BOLLEA being an endorser of the services provided by LASER SPINE, and the loss of income. 74. The unauthorized use of BOLLEA's name and likeness by LASER SPINE in its

commercial, promotional and advertising materials which was published to the general public is a violation of Florida Statutes 540.08, which is intended to protect persons such BOLLEA from having his name or likeness used without his authorization, and it provides specific remedies that are recoverable by persons such as BOLLEA. Therefore, BOLLEA is entitled to recover all damages provided for therein including those remedies provided for under the common law for an invasion of privacy, loss of royalties, disgorgement of revenues, and punitive or exemplary damages.

-17-

DEMAND FOR JUDGMENT

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against DEFENDANTS for damages in excess of the jurisdictional limits of this Court ($15,000), interest, taxable costs, trial by jury of all triable issues, and such other relief to which Plaintiff may be entitled.

CERTIFICATE OF COUNSEL
I certify that I have made a reasonable investigation of the grounds for this action pursuant to 766.104, Fla. Stat. This investigation has included the review of all pertinent medical records and imaging studies by a Board Certified Neurosurgeon who is also an Associate Professor of Surgery at Harvard Medical School and Associate Chief of Neurosurgery at a Boston area teaching hospital who concluded that medical negligence occurred as described within this Complaint. In addition, the

investigation included discussions and conferences with BOLLEA's local spine surgeons who performed his corrective open spinal fusion in December, 2010, (the Director of Complex and Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery in the Department of Neurosurgery at the University of South Florida, and the Division Chief and Professor of Neurosurgery at the University of South Florida), who have also determined that medical negligence occurred as described within this Complaint. This investigation has given rise to a good-faith belief that sufficient grounds exist for an action against each named defendant. Dated this /T^day of January, 2013.

FLORIN RQEBIG, P.A.

WIL H. FLORIN, ESQUIRE

Florida Bar No.: 0337234

ERIC P. CZELUSTA, ESQUIRE

Florida Bar No.: 152315 Primary Email: WHF@PlorinRoebig.com Secondary Email: ECzelusta(a).FlorinRoebig.com; Lisa@FlorinRoebig.com 777 Alderman Road Palm Harbor, Florida 34683
-18-

Telephone No.: (727) 786-5000 Facsimile No.: (727) 772-9833 Attorneys for Plaintiff

-19-