Filing #83083856 E-Filed 01/09/2019 01:29:04-PM 

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 

11TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND 

FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA 

ASBESTOS DIVISION 

BLANCA MOURE-CABRERA, CASE NO.: 201 9-000727-CA-01 

Plaintiff, 

CYPRUS AMAX MINERALS CO., individually and as successor in interest to 

CHARLES MATHIEU; 

IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC., individually and as successor in interest to 

- and/or f/k/a LUZENAC AMERICA, INC., LUZENAC, INC. and 

CYPRUS AMAX MINERALS CO., individually and as successor in interest to 

CHARLES MATHIEU; 

JOHNSON & JOHNSON; 

JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC.; 

PUBLIX SUPER MARKETS, INC.; 

Defendants. 

COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

COMES NOW, Plaintiff, BLANCA MOURE-CABRERA, by and through the undersigned 

counsel, and files this Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial against the above-named Defendants 

and alleges as follows: 

1. Plaintiffs action is an action for damages in excess of the sum of FIFTEEN 

THOUSAND AND NO/100 ($15,000.00) DOLLARS, exclusive of interest and costs. 

2. BLANCA MOURE-CABRERA is the Plaintiff herein. 

3. Venue is proper in Miami-Dade County pursuant to Florida Statute § 47.051 and § 

47.021, as Plaintiffs causes of action accrued in Miami-Dade County and at least one of the 

Defendants against whom this action is brought has an agent and/or representative in this County, 

and/or otherwise resides here. 

Case 19-01106-RAM Doc 1-1 Filed 04/18/19 Page 1 of 21
4. "Asbestos" or "asbestos-containing/contaminated products" or "products" as used 

in this Complaint means asbestos as well as any and all materials, products, component products, 

and/or manufactured goods containing or including in whole or in any mixture (including as a 

contaminant, such as asbestiform talc and/or asbestos-contaminated talc) with other materials 

manufactured, marketed, sold, distributed, and/or used for any and all purposes, including but not 

limited to cosmetic talcum powder. 

S. Plaintiff, BLANCA MOURE-CABRERA, was born on July 28, 1937, and is 

eighty-one (81) years of age. 

6. Plaintiff, BLANCA MOURE-CABRERA, was diagnosed with terminal peritoneal 

mesothelioma on or about August 15, 2018, as a result of Plaintiff's exposure to asbestos and 

asbestiform fibers in Defendants' asbestos-contaminated talc and talcum powders. 

7. Plaintiff, BLANCA MOURE-CABRERA, was exposed to Defendants' asbestoscontaminated Johnson & Johnson Baby Powder, which was purchased from Defendant PUB LIX 

SUPER MARKETS, INC., at her residences in Miami-Dade County, Florida, between or within 

the approximate years of 1964 and 2018. 

8. Plaintiff, BLANCA MOURE-CABRERA, was exposed to asbestos-contaminated 

talc and talcum powders designed, manufactured, sold and/or distributed by each of the abovenamed Defendants, individually or through its predecessors or subsidiaries. 

9. Plaintiff, BLANCA MOURE-CABRERA, was exposed to Defendants' products in 

the intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. 

10. Plaintiff's exposure to, contact with, inhalation, and/or ingestion of Defendants' 

asbestos-contaminated talc and talcum powders caused Plaintiff to contract peritoneal 

mesothelioma. Plaintiffs alleged causes of action arise out of, or are incidental to each 

2 

Case 19-01106-RAM Doc 1-1 Filed 04/18/19 Page 2 of 21
Defendant's interstate, intrastate, and international business ventures conducted in the United 

States, including Florida. 

11. Pursuant to Florida Statute § 415.1115 and Florida Rules of Judicial Administration 

2.215(g) and 2.545(c)(1), Plaintiff's action is afforded priority status due to Plaintiff's age and 

terminal disease. 

DEFENDANTS 

12. Defendant, CYPRUS AMAX MINERALS CO., individually and as successor in 

interest to CHARLES MATHIEU, INC., is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of 

business located in Arizona. At all times material to this cause of action, Defendant designed, 

manufactured, sold, and/or distributed asbestos-containing products throughout the United States, 

including Florida, which Defendant knew or should have known contained asbestos, and which 

Plaintiff purchased, used and was exposed to in her life, causing Plaintiff's mesothelioma. 

Defendant's affiliations with the State of Florida are so continuous and systematic as to render it 

essentially at home in the State of Florida. Service of process on Defendant is predicated on Fla. 

Stat. § 48.081 and Fla. Stat. § 48.091. 

13. Defendant, IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC., individually and as successor in 

interest to and/or f/k/a LUZENAC AMERICA, INC., LUZENAC, INC. and CYPRUS AMAX 

MINERALS CO., individually and as successor in interest to CHARLES MATHIEU, INC., is a 

Delaware corporation with its principal place of business located in Georgia. At all times material 

to this cause of action, Defendant designed, manufactured, sold, and/or distributed asbestoscontaining products throughout the United States, including Florida, which Defendant knew or 

should have known contained asbestos, and which Plaintiff purchased, used and was exposed to 

in her life, causing Plaintiffs mesothelioma. Defendant's affiliations with the State of Florida are 

Case 19-01106-RAM Doc 1-1 Filed 04/18/19 Page 3 of 21
so continuous and systematic as to render it essentially at home in the State of Florida. Service of 

process on Defendant is predicated on Fla. Stat. § 48.081 and Fla. Stat. § 48.091. 

14. Defendant, JOHNSON & JOHNSON, is a New Jersey corporation with its 

principal place of in New Jersey. At all times material to this cause of action, Defendant designed, 

manufactured, sold, and/or distributed asbestos-containing products throughout the United States, 

including Florida, which Defendant knew or should have known contained asbestos, and which 

Plaintiff purchased, used and was exposed to in her life, causing Plaintiffs mesothelioma. 

Defendant's affiliations with the State of Florida are so continuous and systematic as to render it 

essentially at home in the State of Florida. Service of process on Defendant is predicated on Fla. 

Stat. § 48.081 and Fla. Stat. § 48.091. 

15. Defendant, JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC., is a New Jersey 

corporation with its principal place of in New Jersey. At all times material to this cause of action, 

Defendant designed, manufactured, sold, and/or distributed asbestos-containing products 

throughout the United States, including Florida, which Defendant knew or should have known 

contained asbestos, and which Plaintiff purchased, used and was exposed to in her life, causing 

Plaintiff's mesothelioma. Defendant's affiliations with the State of Florida are so continuous and 

systematic as to render it essentially at home in the State of Florida. Service of process on 

Defendant is predicated on Fla. Stat. § 48.081 and Fla. Stat. § 48.091. 

lb. Defendant, PUBLIX SUPER MARKETS, INC., is a Florida corporation with its 

principal place of business located in Florida. At all times material to this cause of action, 

Defendant designed, manufactured, sold, and/or distributed asbestos-containing products 

throughout the United States, including Florida, which Defendant knew or should have known 

contained asbestos, and which Plaintiff purchased, used and was exposed to in her life, causing 

4 

Case 19-01106-RAM Doc 1-1 Filed 04/18/19 Page 4 of 21
Plaintiff's mesothelioma. Defendant's affiliations with the State of Florida are so continuous and 

systematic as to render it essentially at home in the State of Florida. Service of process on 

Defendant is predicated on Fla. Stat. § 48.081 and Fla. Stat. § 48.091. 

17. Each of the above-named Defendants have, at all times material to this cause of 

action, through their agents, officers and representatives, operated, conducted, engaged in and 

carried on a business venture in Florida; maintained an office or agency in this State; solicited 

business or provided service activities within this State; and/or committed a tortious act within this 

State by manufacturing, selling and disseminating to the public inherently dangerous asbestoscontaining products: 1) Without testing said products to determine their harmful effects on persons 

coming in contact with said products; and 2) By failing to take any reasonable precautions or to 

exercise reasonable care to adequately or sufficiently warn Plaintiff and other persons similarly 

situated, of the risks, dangers and harm of contracting mesothelioma, asbestosis, lung cancer and 

other forms of cancers, through exposure to, contact with, use of, handling and/or manipulation of 

Defendants' asbestos-containing products and the consequent inhalation of the asbestos dust and 

fibers resulting from the ordinary and foreseeable use of said asbestos and/or asbestos containing 

products.1 

18. Plaintiff's causes of action arise from each Defendant operating, conducting, 

engaging in, or carrying on a business or business venture in the State of Florida or having an 

office or agency in this State; and/or committing a tortious act within this State. Furthermore, each 

Defendant has caused injury to Plaintiff within this State arising out of acts and/or omissions by 

each Defendant inside and outside this State. At the time of Plaintiff's injury, each Defendant was 

1This paragraph contains allegations of fact (not allegations of law) supporting Plaintiff's claims. 

Thus, Plaintiff is not alleging that Defendants are subject to any legal requirement or legal duty 

not recognized under Florida law. 

5 

Case 19-01106-RAM Doc 1-1 Filed 04/18/19 Page 5 of 21
engaged in solicitation or service activities within this State; and products, materials, or things 

processed, serviced, or manufactured by Defendants were used within this State in the ordinary 

course of commerce, trade, or use. Additionally, each of the above-named Defendants have, at all 

times material to this cause of action, through their agents, officers and representatives, engaged 

in substantial and not isolated activity within the State of Florida. 

19. Defendants' tortuous conduct, including but not limited to failure to warn and/or 

the manufacture, sale and/or distribution of defective products, is continuing and presently 

existing, caused injuries to Plaintiff herein, arose out of the acts and/or omissions which occurred 

inside and outside of the State of Florida during the relevant period of time Defendants' products 

were used and/or consumed in the ordinary course of commerce, trade and/or use, as set forth 

herein and said use or consumption caused Plaintiff to contract mesothelioma. 

COUNT I: NEGLIGENCE 

Plaintiff adopts, realleges, and incorporates the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 19 

above, and further alleges the following: 

20. Plaintiff was exposed to asbestos and/or asbestos-containing products 

manufactured, designed, sold, supplied and/or distributed by the above-referenced Defendants. 

21. While using Defendants' asbestos-containing products, Plaintiff inhaled asbestos 

fibers contained within, on and emitted from Defendants' products, causing Plaintiff to eventually 

develop mesothelioma. Each exposure to Defendants' products, which were connected to and 

incidental to Defendants' manufacture, sale, supply and/or distribution of its products, was harmful 

and substantially contributed in causing Plaintiff's mesothelioma. 

22. Due to her mesothelioma, Plaintiff has required medical treatment; is greatly 

inconvenienced in her ability to lead and enjoy a normal life; has lost substantial income; and is 

6 

Case 19-01106-RAM Doc 1-1 Filed 04/18/19 Page 6 of 21
permanently impaired. As a result of her condition, Plaintiff has suffered, and continues to suffer, 

pain, mental anguish, depression and other mental disorders; incurred, and continues to incur, 

medical expenses for the treatment of physical and mental injuries; and is physically handicapped. 

Said injuries are permanent and continuing in nature, and will result in Plaintiffs inevitable death. 

23. The aforementioned injuries, disabilities and eventual death of Plaintiff are the 

direct and proximate cause of the negligence of Defendants and/or their predecessors-in-interest 

or subsidiaries, in that Defendants manufactured, designed, sold, supplied and/or distributed and/or 

otherwise placed into the stream of intrastate and interstate commerce products which Defendants 

knew or, in the exercise of ordinary care should have known, were deleterious and highly harmful 

to Plaintiff's health and wellbeing, and yet did nothing to advise Plaintiff of this information. 

24. Before manufacturing, designing, selling, supplying and/or distributing their 

products, to which Plaintiff was exposed, each Defendant knew, or in the exercise of reasonable 

care should have known, that Plaintiff and/or others similarly situated would purchase, use and be 

exposed to asbestos from their products by inhaling asbestos fibers emitted or released from same. 

25. At all times material to this cause of action, Defendants' products contained latent 

characteristics and/or design defects at the time of manufacture and Plaintiff's exposure, and each 

Defendant knew, or should have known, that Plaintiff's exposures to their products were harmful 

and could cause serious injuries including, but not limited to, mesothelioma, asbestosis, lung 

cancer, ovarian cancer and/or other forms of cancer. 

26. Each Defendant also knew, or should have known, that its products would be used 

by and around Plaintiff, or those similarly situated, without inspection for these defects and 

furthermore, that any such inspection would not have revealed the asbestos fibers or underlying 

danger contained in Defendants' products; or that exposure to same could cause severe injury. 

7 

Case 19-01106-RAM Doc 1-1 Filed 04/18/19 Page 7 of 21
These facts, known to or readily ascertainable by each Defendant, made Defendants' products 

inherently and unreasonably dangerous in that Plaintiff could not know nor contemplate the 

dangers of inhaling asbestos fibers from, in, or on Defendants' products that Plaintiff used or was 

exposed to during her lifetime and daily life. 

27. Each Defendant who was in the business of manufacturing, designing selling, 

supplying, and/or distributing products during the times pertinent to this suit was negligent and/or 

failed to exercise reasonable care in one, some and/or all of the following respects, the same being 

the proximate cause of Plaintiff's injuries and impending death2; 

a. In failing to adequately warn Plaintiff of the dangerous characteristics of its 

products in that each Defendant failed to warn Plaintiff that she could develop fatal 

injuries including, but not limited to, mesothelioma, asbestosis, lung cancer and/or 

other forms of cancer, as a result of being exposed to asbestos emitted from each 

Defendant's products. . 

b. In failing to place adequate warnings on or in the containers of said asbestos and/or 

asbestos-containing materials to warn of the dangers to one's health of coming in 

contact with said asbestos fibers and/or asbestos-containing materials and of the 

gravity of the risk and extent of danger that Plaintiff was exposing herself by 

working with and being exposed to said products. 

c. In failing to take reasonable precautions or exercise reasonable care to publish, 

adopt and enforce a safety plan and a safe method of handling and installing 

asbestos and/or asbestos-containing materials. 

2 The following subsections (a-g) contain allegations of fact (not allegations of law) supporting 

Plaintiff's claim for negligence. Thus, Plaintiff is not alleging that Defendants are subject to any 

legal requirement or legal duty not recognized under Florida law. 

8. 

Case 19-01106-RAM Doc 1-1 Filed 04/18/19 Page 8 of 21
• d. In failing to develop and utilize a substitute material to eliminate asbestos fibers 

in the products manufactured, designed, sold, supplied and/or distributed. 

e. In failing to utilize the available substitute materials for asbestos fibers in the 

products mined, milled, manufactured, designed, sold, supplied and/or 

distributed. 

f. In continuing to sell and otherwise distribute asbestos products when each 

Defendant knew at the time of sale and/or distribution of said products, that such 

products caused injuries including, but not limited to, mesothelioma, asbestosis, 

lung cancer and/or other forms of cancer, to those persons exposed to said products. 

g. In failing to adequately test their respective asbestos fibers and/or asbestoscontaining products before offering them for sale and use so that Plaintiff and other 

persons similarly situated, would not inhale the asbestos dust and fibers resulting 

from the ordinary and foreseeable use of said products and thereby expose herself 

to the development of fatal injuries including, but not limited to, mesothelioma, 

asbestosis, lung cancer and/or other forms of cancer as a result of such inhalation 

of the asbestos dust and fibers. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants on all of the 

aforementioned counts for compensatory damages against all Defendants herein, for Plaintiff's 

costs expended herein, for interest and for such other and further relief both at law and in equity 

to which Plaintiff may show to be justly entitled. 

COUNT STRICT LIABILITY 

Plaintiff adopts, realleges, and incorporates the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 19 

above, and further alleges the following: 

9 

Case 19-01106-RAM Doc 1-1 Filed 04/18/19 Page 9 of 21
28. Each Defendant, their predecessors-in-interest and/or their alter egos are and/or have 

been a manufacturer, distributor, supplier, retailer, wholesaler and/or assembler of asbestos and/or 

asbestos-containing products. 

29. The products complained of were manufactured, designed, sold, supplied and/or 

distributed by each of the Defendants and used by and/or in the vicinity of the Plaintiff during her 

lifetime. 

30. Defendants manufactured, designed, sold,. supplied and/or distributed and/or 

otherwise placed into the stream of commerce and/or caused to be placed into the steam of commerce 

their asbestos and/or asbestos-containing products. 

31. Plaintiff used, was around and was exposed to each Defendant's asbestos fibers or 

asbestos-containing products during her lifetime, during which time asbestos from or on Defendants' 

products were liberated into the air and inhaled by Plaintiff eventually causing her mesothelioma. 

32. At the time the Defendants manufactured, designed, sold, supplied and/or 

distributed the aforesaid products, such products were expected to, and did, reach Plaintiff in a 

condition without substantial change from that in which such products were when within the 

possession of Defendants. 

33. Defendants' products were dangerous beyond the expectation of the ordinary user 

when used as intended or in a manner reasonably foreseeable by Defendants. 

34. When used, Defendants' products failed to perform as safely as Plaintiff expected 

in that the products released respirable asbestos fibers causing Plaintiff's mesothelioma. 

35. Defendants' products were in a condition unreasonably dangerous to users, such as 

Plaintiff, and said products were expected to, and did, reach Plaintiff without substantial change 

affecting that condition. 

10 

Case 19-01106-RAM Doc 1-1 Filed 04/18/19 Page 10 of 21
36. Defendants' products to which Plaintiff was exposed were used in the manner in 

which they were intended. 

37. Defendants' products were, by reason of their design, in a condition unreasonably 

dangerous to users, such as Plaintiff, and said products were expected to, and did, reach Plaintiff 

without substantial change affecting that condition. 

38. Defendants' products, which called for the use of asbestos, were unreasonably 

dangerous because of their design in that the risk of danger to users, such as Plaintiff, outweighed the 

benefits. 

39. Defendants' products were in a defective condition and unreasonably dangerous, in 

that those products3: 

a. Did not provide an adequate warning of the potential harm that might result from 

exposure to asbestos and/or asbestos-containing dust and, alternatively, did not have 

adequate instructions for safe use of the products; 

b. Did not contain proper respirators to protect users, such as Plaintiff, from the 

potential harm that might result from exposure to asbestos and/or asbestoscontaining/contaminated dust; 

3 The following subsections (a-e) contain allegations of fact (not allegations of law) supporting 

Plaintiff's claim for strict liability. Thus, Plaintiff is not alleging that Defendants are subject to 

any legal requirement or legal duty not recognized under Florida law. 

11 

Case 19-01106-RAM Doc 1-1 Filed 04/18/19 Page 11 of 21
c. Did not have warnings to persons, such as Plaintiff, who had been, or reasonably 

may have been, exposed to Defendants' asbestos and/or asbestos-containing 

products, of their disease potential, the proper steps to take to reduce the harmful 

effects of previous exposure, the need to have periodic chest x-rays and medical 

examinations including the giving of histories which revealed the details of the 

previous exposure, and the need to have immediate and vigorous medical treatment 

for all respiratory problems; 

d. By design contained asbestos, a substance deleterious, poisonous, and highly harmful 

to Plaintiff; or 

e. Contained asbestos when and after it became feasible to design, manufacture and 

market reasonably comparable products not containing asbestos fibers. 

40. Plaintiff, unaware of the defective and unreasonably dangerous condition of 

Defendants' products at a time when such products were being used for the purposes for which they 

were intended, was exposed to asbestos contained in Defendants' asbestos-contaminated products. 

41. Each Defendant knew that their products would be used without inspection for 

defects, and by placing them on the market, represented that they would safely do the job for which 

they were intended, which must necessarily include the safe handling, installation and replacement of 

said asbestos products. 

42. Plaintiff, unaware of the hazards and defects in Defendants' products, was exposed to 

asbestos, causing Plaintiff to develop mesothelioma and making said asbestos-containing products 

unsafe for the purpose of handling, installation and removal of same. 

43. As a direct and proximate result of the product defects as described herein, Plaintiff 

was caused to contract diseases and injuries to her body, including mesothelioma. Due to her 

12 

Case 19-01106-RAM Doc 1-1 Filed 04/18/19 Page 12 of 21
mesothelioma, Plaintiff has required and will require medical treatment; has been greatly 

inconvenienced in her ability to lead and enjoy a normal life; has lost and will continue to lose 

substantial income; has been permanently impaired; and will eventually and unfortunately die from 

mesothelioma. As a result of her condition, Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer pain, 

mental anguish, depression and other mental disorders; has incurred and will continue to incur 

medical expenses for treatment of physical and mental injuries; and suffered physical handicap 

and impairment. Said injuries are permanent and continuing in nature, causing Plaintiff to horribly 

suffer until her eventual death. 

44. Defendants' products were unreasonably dangerous because a less dangerous 

alternative, substitute and/or modification were economically feasible and readily available. Plaintiff 

alleges that there were substitute materials for asbestos known to each Defendant and unknown to 

Plaintiff, which could have been used by each Defendant in designing and manufacturing their 

products which Plaintiff handled, used, and was exposed. Being in the business of manufacturing, 

designing, selling, supplying, and/or distributing asbestos-containing products during the times 

pertinent to this suit, and being considered an expert in its field, each Defendant knew or should 

have known that Plaintiff or others similarly situated would come in contact with their asbestoscontaining products, and would be exposed to asbestos by inhaling the asbestos contained in each 

of their products, eventually causing fatal injuries including, but not limited to, mesothelioma, 

asbestosis, lung cancer and/or other forms of cancer. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants on all of the 

aforementioned counts for compensatory damages against all Defendants herein, for Plaintiffs 

costs expended herein, for interest and for such other and further relief both at law and in equity 

to which Plaintiff may show to be justly entitled. 

. 13 

Case 19-01106-RAM Doc 1-1 Filed 04/18/19 Page 13 of 21
DAMAGES4 

Plaintiff adopts, realleges, and incorporates the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 44 

above, and further alleges the following: 

45. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence, carelessness, gross negligence, 

strict liability, and/or willful omissions of Defendants as described herein, Plaintiff contracted 

mesothelioma, causing Plaintiffs pain, suffering and mental anguish. 

46. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid, Plaintiff was obligated to spend 

various sums of money to treat Plaintiff's mesothelioma, and Plaintiff continues to be obligated for 

the expenses of same. 

47. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid, Plaintiff has and will stand a loss of 

earnings and earning capacity; and as a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid, Plaintiffs 

enjoyment of life has been impaired and Plaintiffs life expectancy has been shortened, all to Plaintiff's 

great loss. 

48. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid, and since Plaintiff first learned of 

her aforementioned injuries, Plaintiff has suffered, and will continue to suffer, severe anxiety and 

ongoing psychological damage, which may require future psychological and/or medical treatment. 

49. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid, Plaintiff has and will continue to 

suffer a disintegration and deterioration of the family unit and the relationships existing therein, 

resulting in enhanced anguish, depression and other symptoms of psychological stress and disorder. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants on all of the 

aforementioned counts for compensatory damages against all Defendants herein, for Plaintiff's 

4 This section contains allegations of fact (not allegations of law) supporting Plaintiff's claim for 

damages. Thus, Plaintiff is not alleging that Defendants are subject to any legal requirement or 

legal duty not recognized under Florida law. 

14 

Case 19-01106-RAM Doc 1-1 Filed 04/18/19 Page 14 of 21
costs expended herein, for interest and for such other and further relief both at law and in equity 

to which Plaintiff may show to be justly entitled. 

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

Plaintiff demands a trial by jury of all issues so triable as a matter of right. 

DATE: January 9, 2019 

Respectfully submitted, 

THE FERRARO LAW FIRM, P.A. 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

600 Brickell Avenue, Suite 3800 

Miami, Florida 33131 

Telephone (305) 375-0111 

Facsimile (305) 379-6222 

By: 

MARC P. KUNEN, ESQ. 

Florida Bar No.: 91781 

15 

Case 19-01106-RAM Doc 1-1 Filed 04/18/19 Page 15 of 21
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 

11TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND 

FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA 

ASBESTOS DIVISION 

BLANCA MOURE-CABRERA, CASE NO.: 

Plaintiff, 

-vsCYPRUS AMAX MINERALS CO., et al., 

Defendants. 

PLAINTIFF'S SWORN INFORMATION FORM 

COMES NOW, Plaintiff, by and through the undersigned counsel, pursuant to Florida 

Statute § 774.205, and files the following Sworn Information Form: 

I. Pursuant to Florida Statute § 774.205(3)(a): 

Claimant's Name: Blanca Moure-Cabrera 

Address: 29290 SW 187th Court, Homestead, FL 33030 

Date of Birth: 07/28/1937 

Marital Status: Single 

2. Pursuant to Florida Statute § 774.205(3)(b): Plaintiff, Blanca Moure-Cabrera, will testify 

regarding her exposures. 

3. Although Plaintiff anticipates the exposures alleged herein will likely change based on 

discovery, in an effort to comply with the requirements of Florida Statute § 774.205(3)(c), Plaintiff 

states that Plaintiff, Blanca Moure-Cabrera, was exposed at her residences in Miami-Dade County, 

Florida. 

4. Although Plaintiff anticipates the exposures alleged herein will likely change based on 

discovery, in an effort to comply with the requirements of Florida Statute § 774.205(3)(d), Plaintiff 

states that Plaintiff, Blanca Moure-Cabrera, was exposed to Johnson & Johnson Baby Powder, 

Case 19-01106-RAM Doc 1-1 Filed 04/18/19 Page 16 of 21
which was purchased from Publix Supermarkets, at her residences in Miami-Dade County, Florida, 

between or within the approximate years of 1964 and 2018. 

5. Pursuant to Florida Statute § 774.205(3)(e): Although Plaintiff's exposures are unrelated 

to her employment, Plaintiff was employed primarily by Miami-Dade Public Schools during the 

relevant time periods. 

6. Pursuant to Florida Statute § 774.205(6): Mesothelioma. 

7. Pursuant to Florida Statute § 774.205(3)(g): See attached Exhibit A. 

8. Pursuant to Florida Statute § 774.207(2), Plaintiff has received no Collateral Source 

Payments and/or Settlements related to these asbestos-related claims, nor is Plaintiff aware of 

payments Plaintiff will receive in the future as a result of settlements or judgments from these 

claims. 

Case 19-01106-RAM Doc 1-1 Filed 04/18/19 Page 17 of 21
I swear under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. 

FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT 

X 

Blanca Moure-Cabrird 

• I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this day. Blanca Moure-Cabrera personally appeared before 

me, an officer duly authorized to administer oaths and take acknowledgments in the State and 

County aforesaid, and Blanca Moure-Cabrera, [ I being personally known to me or [J who 

produced as identification, executed the foregoing Sworn Information 

Form, and acknowledged before me'that he executed same for the purpose therein expressed. 

SWORN TO and SUBSCRIBED before me this day of , 2018. 

NOTARY PUBLIC 

My commission expires: 

Personally Know ( ) OR Produced Identification ( ) 

Type of Identification Produced: 

Case 19-01106-RAM Doc 1-1 Filed 04/18/19 Page 18 of 21
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served upon 

Defendants via formal service of process with the Complaint at the inception of this lawsuit. 

THE FERRARO LAW FIRM, P.A. 

Attorney for Plaintiff 

600 Brickell Avenue, Suite 3800 

Miami, Florida 33131 

Telephone (305) 375-0111 

Facsimile (305) 379-6222 

By: 

MARC P. KUNEN 

Florida Bar No. 91781 

Case 19-01106-RAM Doc 1-1 Filed 04/18/19 Page 19 of 21
EXHIBIT A 

Case 19-01106-RAM Doc 1-1 Filed 04/18/19 Page 20 of 21
Surgical Pathology Report 

Temporary Copy • 

Case: 002-SP-18-0007523 

Blanca 

Collected: 08/15/2018 13:41 EDT 

Ordered by: Diaz, John Paul MD 

Patient: Moure Cabrera, 

ID: 835996 

Location: SMSouth Miami 

Page: 1 of 1 

DIAGNOSIS: 

A&B. Anterior peritoneal and abdominal wall peritoneal implants: 

Malignant rnesothelioma (see note). 

Note: The tumor is strongly immunoreactive for calretinin, D2-40 and cytokeratin 7. It 

is negative for cytokeratin 20, BerEP4, PAX6, p53, TTF-1 and CDX2. The Ki67 index is 

approximately 10%. This pattern of staining supports the above diagnosis. 

Dr. Otrakji concurs. 

ASR DISCLAIMER Immunohlstochemical stains were performed at Vitro Molecular Labs and interpreted by the South Miami Hospital Pathology 

Department. Some of these tests USA analyto specific reagents (ASRs). The performance characteristics of ASRs were determined by Vitro 

Molecular Labs and have not been cleared or approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The FDA has dete.rmlned that such 

clearance or approval is not necessary. These tests are used for clinical purposes. 

RG/ia 

Ronald Arthur Goerss, MD 

(Electronically signed by) 

Verified: 08/17/2018 

CLINICAL INFORMATION; 

Procedure: Robotic exploration 

Pre-Operative Diagnosis: Pelvic mass 

SPECIMEN SOURCE: 

A.. Anterior peritoneal implant 

B. Anterior abdominal wall peritoneum 

INTRAOPERATIVE CONSULTATION: 

Malignant epithelioid tumor. Mesothelial versus carcinoma. RG/ia 

GROSS DESCRIPTION: 

A. A 1.5 x 1 x 0.4 cm strip of pale brown tissue. All sent for frozen section. 

B. Two pieces of pale brown tissue, in aggregate 1.6 x 1.2 x 0.4 cm. All sent. 1 cassette. 

RG/ia/pj 

Case 19-01106-RAM Doc 1-1 Filed 04/18/19 Page 21 of 21