Class action law suit
The plaintiff, Sarah, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated, alleges and complains as follows:
- Defendant MS has failed to provide a clear definition of itself as a valid entity. It fails to make available clear biomarkers for diagnostic purposes and persists as a medical diagnosis of exclusion, dictating the requirement for the evaluation of a wide range of differential diagnoses.
- Defendant MS continues to manifest itself in a highly heterogeneous manner, making comparisons between occurrences challenging and thus engaging in deceptive and misleading practices.
- Defendant MS has failed to maintain constant characteristics, instead opting to change its clinical progression at will and in a random manner, and becoming increasingly burdensome over time, again engaging in misrepresentation.
- Defendant MS has, in many instances, repeatedly failed to maintain confidentiality. Although disclosure of the condition has been approved to GPs, neurologists and other relevant medical specialists, the plaintiffs did not agree to reveal the condition to the general public, including friends, family, neighbours, employers and colleagues, and the postman.
- Defendant MS has willfully and with intent infringed on the plaintiffs’ intellectual property rights on several instances and without any approval or notice.
- Defendant MS has failed to limit liability during unavoidable acts of God (e.g. heatwave, periods of illness or stress) and instead sought to impose further onerous conditions during those times.
- Defendant MS has failed to provide deliverables desirable to the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs did not object to undergoing regular surveillance imaging, but did not desire to require a wheelchair for mobility purposes.
- Defendant MS has ignored many reasonable requests for relief from affected plaintiffs.
- Defendant MS has failed to respond to reasonable requests to any arrangement other than a lifelong contractual partnership with the plaintiffs.
- Defendant MS continues to impose a particularly onerous termination clause.
In summary, the plaintiff and subclass have suffered significant damages as a direct result of MS’s unlawful acts and practices.
Plaintiff requests trial by jury of all the above claims.
Teaser image: https://www.flickr.com/photos/walkn/3314689121