UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE 

******************************* 

Donna Priolo and * 

Richard Priolo, * 

 Plaintiffs * 

 * 

v. * Civil Action No: 07-CV-413 

 * 

The United States of America * 

 * 

 Defendant * 

 * 

******************************* 

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

 NOW COMES Donna Priolo and Richard Priolo, the Plaintiffs in the above-captioned 

matter, by counsel Boynton, Waldron, Doleac, Woodman & Scott, P.A. and Wiggin & Nourie, 

P.A., and respectfully submit this Complaint, stating in support thereof as follows: 

I. PARTIES AND BACKGROUND

 1. Plaintiff Donna Priolo is an adult residing in Dover, New Hampshire. 

 2. Plaintiff Richard Priolo is the husband of Donna Priolo and resides in Dover, 

New Hampshire. 

 3. Lamprey Health Care, Inc. a New Hampshire Corporation, is a Federally 

Qualified Health Center, as defined by 42 USC 254b and operating under the guidelines set forth 

under 42 USC 254b, and as such is subject to suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act, with a 

principal place of business at 207 South Main Street, Newmarket, New Hampshire and provides 

medical services within the State of New Hampshire. 

Case 1:07-cv-00413-SM Document 2 Filed 12/28/07 Page 1 of 7
 4. Mary Ann Johnson is a nurse practitioner who was employed by the Defendant 

Lamprey Health Care, Inc. 

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

 5. Jurisdiction is vested in the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1346(b), the Federal

Tort Claims Act, as Lamprey Health Care, Inc. is a Federally Qualified Health Center with a 

claim having been made on or about December 21, 2006 and said claim has been presented and 

no action has been taken within six (6) months. 

 6. Venue is properly in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391 (a) and (c) in that the 

Lamprey Health Care, Inc. has continuously and systematically conducted business within and is 

located within, the territorial limits of the District of New Hampshire and the events and 

omissions giving rise to this claim occurred within the territorial limits of the District of New 

Hampshire. 

III. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

 7. Lamprey Health Care, Inc., advertised and promoted a breast screening clinic at 

its facility on or around May of 2005. The Plaintiff, Donna Priolo, who had noticed a lump in 

her right breast, presented to the Defendant on May 9, 2005 for the breast screening clinic. 

 8. The ARNP, Mary Ann Johnson, employed by Lamprey Health Care, Inc., who 

saw the Plaintiff, observed the lump in the Plaintiff’s breast and described it as approximately 

one inch in size and diagnosed it as benign. 

 9. The Plaintiff had no medical insurance and Ms. Johnson informed the Plaintiff 

that once the Plaintiff obtained insurance she could have the lump removed if she felt it was 

cosmetically problematic for the Plaintiff. 

Case 1:07-cv-00413-SM Document 2 Filed 12/28/07 Page 2 of 7
 10. The Plaintiff was not advised to seek any diagnostic studies or to return to the 

Defendant, Lamprey Health Care, Inc. for follow-up to determine whether there were any 

changes. 

 11. Lamprey Health Care, Inc. through its agents, servants and employees negligently 

failed to avail itself and provide the Plaintiff with the acceptable methods of screening and 

diagnosis for breast cancer. 

 12. As a result of incorrect diagnosis that the lump was benign the Plaintiff observed 

the lump growing but was not concerned as she believed the diagnosis of May 9, 2005 was 

correct. 

 13. On December 22, 2005, the Plaintiff went to Dr. Zwaan, a physician in Exeter, 

NH, as the lump had increased in size although the Plaintiff believed same was benign. The 

doctor noted the lump was roughly 2 1⁄2 inches in size, roughly double the size as described by 

the Defendant in May. The Plaintiff was immediately referred to a surgeon, who performed an 

ultrasound and an ultrasound guided core biopsy of the lump which resulted in a diagnosis that 

the lump was malignant. 

 14. Had the tumor been properly diagnosed in May 2005, the treatment would have 

been a lumpectomy and a course of chemotherapy; however, because of the size of the tumor in 

December 2005, it could not have been removed by a lumpectomy resulting in the Plaintiff 

undergoing an initial course of chemotherapy in an attempt to reduce the tumor to allow it to be 

removed through a lumpectomy. 

 15. The attempt to reduce the tumor to a size to permit a lumpectomy was not 

successful and the Plaintiff underwent a bilateral mastectomy followed by another course of 

chemotherapy and radiation, eventually resulting in multiple breast reconstruction surgeries. 

Case 1:07-cv-00413-SM Document 2 Filed 12/28/07 Page 3 of 7
 16. Had a correct diagnosis been made by Lamprey Health Care Inc.’s agents, 

servants and employees or if appropriate diagnostic follow-up was conducted the Plaintiff’s 

initial course of chemotherapy would have been unnecessary and the Plaintiff would have been 

able to avoid the bilateral mastectomy and the radiation, as well. 

 17. As a result of the delay in diagnosis the probability of a recurrence has increased 

and consequently, the probability of the treatment resulting in a cure has decreased. 

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

Count I

(Negligence – Donna Priolo) 

 18. Plaintiffs repeat the allegations made in the preceding paragraphs and incorporate 

the allegations as though set forth verbatim and at length. 

 19. At all time relevant to the allegations contained herein, a duty was owed the 

Plaintiff to exercise reasonable care in the provision of medical services, including, but not 

limited to, the duty to follow the guidelines for breast cancer screening and diagnoses, for 

follow-up examination, diagnostic testing and the duty to otherwise abide by and adhere to 

accepted and applicable standards of practice and care relative to the diagnosis and treatment of 

breast cancer. 

 20. In breach of aforesaid duties, Lamprey Health Care, Inc. failed to follow the 

accepted standard of care for breast cancer diagnosis, and further failed to refer the Plaintiff for 

the appropriate diagnostic studies. 

 21. As a further direct and proximate cause and result of the breach of duties of care 

resulting in Plaintiff’s lump in her right breast not being timely diagnosed, the Plaintiff was 

caused to suffer severe and permanent personal and emotional injuries of disabling and 

permanent natures, severe and prolonged pain and suffering, emotional scarring and 

Case 1:07-cv-00413-SM Document 2 Filed 12/28/07 Page 4 of 7
disfigurement, loss of enjoyment of life, prolonged and repeated medical procedures and 

radiation treatment and an increased probability of recurrence of the cancer and incurred 

significant medical expenses. 

Count II

(Donna Priolo)

 22. The allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 21 are incorporated as though 

set forth verbatim and at length herein. 

 23. That Lamprey Health Care, Inc. had a duty to have a procedure to follow-up on 

recommendations for diagnostic studies made by its providers. 

 24. That Lamprey Health Care, Inc. did not have such a procedure or if it did it failed 

to contact the Plaintiff, Donna Priolo, and to arrange for her to undergo diagnostic tests including 

an ultrasound and biopsy to determine whether the lump which caused the Plaintiff to go to 

Lamprey Health Care, Inc. for an examination was benign. 

 25. Lamprey Health Care, Inc. failed to schedule and notify the Plaintiff that the 

necessary diagnostic studies had been scheduled. 

 26. As a further direct and proximate cause and result of Lamprey Health Care, Inc.’s 

breach of its duty of care to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff was caused to suffer severe and permanent 

personal and emotional injuries of disabling and permanent natures, severe and prolonged pain 

and suffering, emotional and physical scarring and disfigurement, loss of enjoyment of life, 

prolonged and repeated medical procedures including chemotherapy and radiation treatment and 

an increased probability of recurrence of the cancer and incurred significant medical expenses. 

Case 1:07-cv-00413-SM Document 2 Filed 12/28/07 Page 5 of 7
Count III

(Loss of Consortium – Richard Priolo) 

 27. The allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 26 are incorporated as though 

set forth verbatim and at length herein. 

 28. At the time of the incident, the Plaintiff was lawfully married to Richard Priolo. 

 29. As a direct and proximate result of the medical negligence of the Defendant as set 

forth in detail in the preceding paragraphs, Richard Priolo was caused, and continues to be 

caused, to suffer harm and damages in the form of loss of consortium, including but not limited 

to the loss of the care, service, society, affection, sexual relations, and companionship of Mrs. 

Priolo, all to the damage of the Plaintiff, as she says, within the minimum and maximum 

jurisdictional limits of the Court, plus interests and costs. 

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs respectfully pray this Honorable Court: 

1. Grant a judgment for the Plaintiffs; 

2. Award all damages to which the Plaintiffs are entitled; 

3. Grant such other relief as may be just. 

Case 1:07-cv-00413-SM Document 2 Filed 12/28/07 Page 6 of 7
 Respectfully submitted, 

 DONNA & RICHARD PRIOLO 

 By their attorneys, 

Dated: December 28, 2007 By: /s/ William G. Scott________ 

 William G. Scott - NH Bar #2287 

 Boynton Waldron Doleac Woodman & Scott, PA 

 82 Court Street - P.O. Box 418 

 Portsmouth, NH 03802-0418 

 603-436-4010 

 

Dated: December 28, 2007 By: /s/ Cyrus F. Rilee, III_______

 Cyrus F. Rilee, III - NH Bar # 15881

 Wiggin & Nourie, PA 

 PO Box 808 

 Manchester, NH 03105-0808 

 603-669-2211 

Case 1:07-cv-00413-SM Document 2 Filed 12/28/07 Page 7 of 7