Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

UNITED STATES v. NUTRITION SERV.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA


February 17, 1964

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff,
v.
NUTRITION SERVICE, INC., a corporation, Drosnes-Lazenby Cancer Clinic, apartnership, Philip L. Drosnes, Lillian M. Lazency, Joseph M. Wilson, M.D., and Geraldine M. Maiden, Individuals, Defendants

The opinion of the court was delivered by: ROSENBERG

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

The United States of America, as plaintiff, filed its complaint for a permanent injunction, which included a prayer for a temporary restraining order, pending a hearing for a preliminary and final injunction.

 The action is brought under the provisions of the Federal food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C.A. § 301 et seq. *fn1" The plaintiff here seeks to restrain and prevent the defendants from the manufacture, preparation, propagation, compounding or processing and distributing in interstate commerce a product which they have named Mucorhicin.

 The plaintiff maintains here that this is a drug, and the defendants have failed to comply with the Act in (1) that defendants are violating § 331(d) *fn2" by shipping in interstate commerce a new drug, without having secured the Food and Drug Administration's approval of a new drug application as required by § 355(a) *fn3" ; (2) that Mucorhicin is misbranded within the meaning of § 352(l) *fn4" in that it purports to be and is represented as an antibiotic drug and is neither certified nor exempted from certifications as required by § 357(a); *fn5" (3) that defendants are charged with the interstate shipment of drugs which are adulterated within the meaning of § 351(a)(2)(B) *fn6" in that the methods used in and the facilities and controls used for its manufacturing, processing, packaging or holding do not conform to current good manufacturing practice; and (4) that the defendants violate the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act by failing and refusing to register as producers of drugs, as required by § 360(b) and (c). *fn7"

 A hearing on the petition was originally set for January 9, 1964, and by stipulation of the parties it was continued on two occasions and finally agreed to be heard on Monday, January 20, 1964.

 The plaintiff produced a great deal of evidence, both testamentary and documentary, in support of its contentions, and the defendants offered in defense testamentary evidence to the effect that Mucorhicin was not a drug but a food supplement. They also raise a number of legal questions.

 From all of the evidence produced at the hearing of this case, I make the following:

 FINDINGS OF FACT

 1. The defendant, Nutrition Service, Inc., is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Pennsylvania, incorporated October 7, 1963, and domiciled in the City of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 4774 Liberty Avenue, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, within the jurisdiction of this Court.

 2. The defendant, the Drosnes-Lazenby partnership, had been trading and doing business at 4774 Liberty Avenue, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, within the jurisdiction of this Court and has and had been trading and doing business as the Drosnes-Lazenby Cancer Clinic and the Drosnes-Lazenby Clinic.

 3. Commencing on or about the year 1950, and prior to October 7, 1963, Lillian M. Lazenby and Philip L. Drosnes did business and operated under the name of 'Drosnes-Lazenby'.

 4. There was at no time any official registration of an entity or combination of persons known as 'Drosnes-Lazenby Cancer Clinic'.

 5. On May 19, 1950, Philip L. Drosnes had registered the name 'Drosnes-Lazenby' under the Fictitious Names Act of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, said registration being in the Prothonotary's Office of Allegheny County, and being further registered in the State Department at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. The avowed purposes of the business organization known as Drosnes-Lazenby were set forth in the application for said registration to be: 'Research and development and manufacture of biologically processed foods'.

 6. The defendant, Philip L. Drosnes, an individual, is Secretary-Treasurer of the said corporation; has and had been acting at the said Drosnes-Lazenby Cancer Clinic as the Administrative Director; and resides at 914 N. Negley Avenue, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, within the jurisdiction of this Court.

 7. The defendant, Lillian M. Lazenby, an individual, is president of the said corporation, Nutrition Service, Inc.; has and had been acting at the said Drosnes-Lazenby Cancer Clinic under the title of Associate Director; and maintains a summer residence at R.D. No. 2, Jamestown, Pennsylvania, within the jurisdiction of this Court.

 8. The defendant, Joseph W. Wilson, M.D., an individual, is a physician licensed to practice medicine in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; is and was employed at the said Drosnes-Lazenby Cancer Clinic in the position of Medical Supervisor; is Research and Nutrition Director of the said corporation; and resides at 217 Sunset Drive, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, within the jurisdiction of this Court.

 9. The defendant, Geraldine M. Maiden, an individual, is vice-president of said corporation; is and was an employee at the Drosnes-Lazenby Cancer Clinic and resides at 103 Aberyl Drive, Ross Township, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, within the jurisdiction of this Court.

 10. The defendants have been, up to the issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order in this cause on January 3, 1964, engaged in the business of manufacturing, processing, packing, labeling, promoting, selling and distributing in interstate commerce, an article designated as Mucorhicin.

 11. The product, Mucorhicin, is derived from a fermentation and molding process of natural components of wheat, yeast, salt and water.

 12. The product contains no synthetic drug constituents.

 13. The product has been analyzed by the plaintiff and the analyses have demonstrated that Mucorhicin has no antibiotic effects.

 14. The product, Mucorhicin, is not an antibiotic drug.

  15. There is no evidence that Mucorhicin as such harmed anyone.

 16. For a number of years prior to the formation of the corporation, Nutrition Service, Inc., the defendants under the name of Drosnes-Lazenby Clinic and Drosnes-Lazenby Cancer Clinic initiated correspondence by mailing directly to clinics, chiropractors, naprapaths and to doctors, copies of literature, letters of instructions, testimonials and other labeling of the product Mucorhicin summarizing its uses and results. 17. Prior to October 7, 1963, defendants dispensed or caused to be dispensed Mucorhicin in 1/2 ounce bottles, which contained a label with the following language: MUCORHICIN Directions ... Take Drops Every Hours .. Times a Day .. Each Meal .. Bed Time

19640217

© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.