The "unauthorized" Nanjo lawsuit...
The following text, below the line, was copied from Robert S. Baratz's "Casewatch" website before they took it off the site. The site is edited by Stephen Barrett. The case shown below in the text, is the one the Plaintiff, Barbell (Barbara) Nanjo claimed in a notarized statement, that she never wanted, nor authorized, nor believes in. The case was summarily dismissed.
But, Barrett, and his vicious conspirators, manipulated the internet search engines like google, to put this "fake" case onto the first page of those search engines - for his, and their, own purposes. Four of the Dentists listed in this case had to shut down their practices after this.
The manufacturer of the fully FDA approved Cavitat device had to file for bankruptcy.
Businessweek magazine, and the Los Angeles Times newspaper both ran articles on this, as though this case had merit. Since the case was dismissed, neither publication has run a follow-up article.
Tim Bolen
"NICO" Network Sued for Malpractice and Fraud
In March 2006, six dental practitioners, an oral pathologist, and a device manufacturer were sued by a woman who had sought help for jaw pain and various other symptoms. The suit alleged:
- Six of the dentists misdiagnosed her problem, and five of them extracted healthy teeth and portions of the surrounding jawbone in futile attempts to help her.
- All of the defendants conspired to commit fraud by promoting the bogus diagnosis of neuralgia-inducing cavitational osteonecrosis ("NICO").
- Several of the defendants committed research improprieties and misrepresented the legal status of the device.
In September 2006, for jurisdictional reasons, the case against Cavitat, Robert Jones, and Drs. Christopher Hussar, Robert Kulacz, and Wesley Shankland was withdrawn from California and refiled in a federal court in Nevada. Hussar and Shankland were subsequently dismissed, and the Kulacz case is being transferred to federal court in New York State, where he resides. The allegations and charges in the Nevada suit were similar to those in the original except that Dr. Kulacz was not accused of "intentional misrepresentation" and "conspiracy to commit fraud."
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
(Name withheld on request)
vs. CAVITAT MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES,
|
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) |
Case No. SC 089051 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
|
COMES NOW Plaintiff ________________, also known as ________________, and alleges as follows:
PARTIES
1. Defendant ALIREZA PANAHPOUR, D.D.S., aka ALEXANDER PANA (hereinafter referred to as “PANA”) is, and at all times herein mentioned was, a dentist licensed to practice dentistry by the State of California with his principal place of business located at 11500 West Olympic Boulevard, Los Angeles, California 90064.
2. Defendant J.E. BOUQUOT, D.D.S. (hereinafter referred to as “BOUQUOT”), now a resident of Texas, was, at all times herein mentioned, an oral pathologist operating a biopsy service under various dba’s, including Head & Neck Diagnostics of America, a Division of the Maxillofacial Center for Diagnostics & Research, Maxillofacial Center, Head & Neck Diagnostics and Head & Neck Diagnostics of West Virginia, all of which had, at all times relevant herein, their principal place of business located at 165 Scott Avenue, Suite 101, Morgantown, West Virginia 26508. At all times herein mentioned, Defendant BOUQUOT operated his biopsy service, billed California patients directly in the State of California and conducted business with Defendants practicing dentistry in the State of California by making diagnoses of dental specimens in conjunction with said Defendants and sending reports of his findings to said Defendants in the State of California, thereby manifesting sufficient contact with the State of California to establish personal jurisdiction over said Defendant.
3. Defendant MAXILLOFACIAL CENTER FOR DIAGNOSTICS & RESEARCH (hereinafter referred to as “MAXILLOFACIAL CENTER”) is a business entity currently operating in Texas, but at all times herein mentioned, maintained its principal place of business at 165 Scott Avenue, Suite 101, Morgantown, West Virginia 26508. Said Defendant does business with practicing dentists in the State of California by making diagnoses of dental specimens in conjunction with California dentists pertaining to California dental patients and by billing California patients directly, thereby manifesting sufficient contact with the State of California to establish personal jurisdiction over said Defendant.
4. Defendants JAMES SHEN, D.D.S. (hereinafter referred to as “SHEN”) and RILY YOUNG, D.D.S. (hereinafter referred to as “YOUNG”) are, and at all times herein mentioned were, general dentists licensed to practice general dentistry by the State of California with their principal place of business located at 18751 Beach Boulevard, Huntington Beach, California 92648.
5. Defendant CHRISTOPHER HUSSAR, D.D.S., D.O. (hereinafter referred to as “HUSSAR”) is, and at all times herein mentioned was, a dentist licensed to practice general dentistry by the State of Michigan, but at all times herein mentioned, practiced osteopathic medicine in the State of Nevada with his principal place of business located at 9408 Double R Boulevard, Suite A, Reno, Nevada 89521, at which location he purported to provide dental and medical treatment to Plaintiff. Defendant HUSSAR is a nationally prominent proponent of alternative dentistry who has authored several nationally published books and articles offered for sale in California, including but not limited to “Poisons in Your Mouth”. At all times herein mentioned, Defendant HUSSAR advertised on several alternative medicine web sites and offered for sale to consumers in California products which included his books and videos, as well as admission to seminars in which he spoke on topics relating to his performance of oral surgical procedures designed to eliminate diseased bone and teeth from the jaw, all of which Internet business manifests sufficient contact with the State of California to establish personal jurisdiction over said Defendant.
6. Defendant ROBERT KULACZ, D.D.S. (hereinafter referred to as “KULACZ”) was, at all times herein mentioned, a dentist licensed to practice general dentistry by the State of New York, with his prior principal place of business located at 280 Mamaroneck Avenue, Suite 307, White Plains, New York 10605. Defendant KULACZ is a nationally known proponent of integrative dentistry who has authored nationally published books and articles offered for sale in California, including but not limited to “Roots of Disease”. At all times herein mentioned, Defendant KULACZ advertised on several alternative medicine web sites and offered for sale to consumers in California products which included his books and radio shows, all of which Internet business manifests sufficient contact with the State of California to establish personal jurisdiction over said Defendant. During the time Plaintiff sought dental treatment from Defendant KULACZ, he maintained his own web site, from which he solicited dental clients from throughout the United States.
7. Defendant WESLEY E. SHANKLAND, II, D.D.S. (hereinafter referred to as “SHANKLAND”) is, and at all times herein mentioned was, a dentist licensed to practice general dentistry by the State of Ohio with his principal place of business located at 6011 Cleveland Avenue, Columbus, Ohio 43231 and a member of Defendant CAVITAT’s “Scientific Board of Advisors”. Defendant SHANKLAND is the author of several books and articles published nationally and offered for sale in California. At all times herein mentioned, Defendant SHANKLAND operated his own website, http://www.drshankland.com/ from which he solicited patients from throughout the United States, including California, to his Center for Facial Pain, stating “Dr. Shankland evaluates countless patients from North America and many foreign countries each year”, and from which he sold products to California consumers, all of which manifests sufficient contact with the State of California to establish personal jurisdiction over said Defendant.
8. Defendant CAVITAT MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC. (hereinafter referred to as “CAVITAT”) is, and at all times herein mentioned was, a Colorado corporation with its current principal place of business presently located at 150 CR 1558, Suite C, Alba, Texas, and the manufacturer of the Cavitat device which, at all times herein mentioned, it advertised and sold to dental practitioners in the State of California for use within the State of California, thereby manifesting sufficient contact with the State of California to establish personal jurisdiction over said Defendant.
9. Defendant ROBERT JONES (hereinafter referred as to “JONES”) is now a resident of the State of Texas, but at all times herein mentioned was, a resident of the State of Colorado who was the president and chief executive officer of Defendant CAVITAT. All actions taken by CAVITAT relevant to this action, including the advertisement and sale of the Cavitat device to dental practitioners in the State of California for use in treating dental patients in the State of California, were at the authorization and/or ratification of Defendant JONES, thereby manifesting sufficient contact with the State of California to establish personal jurisdiction over said Defendant.
10. Defendant BOUQUOT is a member of Defendant CAVITAT’s “Scientific Board of Advisors” and the discoverer of a purported disease he calls neuralgia-inducing cavitational osteonecrosis (“NICO”). This purported disease/condition has not been substantiated by clear etiological data, has not been the subject of credible Investigational Review Board supervised clinical studies and has not been accepted by the evidence-based scientific and dental communities. The treatment of choice for proponents of NICO is radical and disfiguring surgery, removing teeth, bone and tissue which, in most instances, results in treating normal biological phenomena as pathological.
11. All of the above-identified individual Defendants, excepting Jones, are dentists who espouse, among other things, that systemic neuromuscular and neurological diseases spread from infections emanating from focal points in the mouth, such as periodontal infections, viable teeth with amalgam fillings, NICO lesions and root-canaled teeth which they consider to be dead teeth. Adhering to this focal point theory, these dentists advocate the removal of amalgam fillings, root-canaled teeth, and traditional dental work and purport to treat non-dental conditions by regularly removing healthy teeth and performing extensive, invasive and unnecessary surgeries on their patients. Conversely, the prevailing standard of care requires, in order to identify the cause of oro-facial pain, a comprehensive intraoral and extraoral examination, including a thorough periodontal examination, a detailed occlusal analysis with study models, the taking of high resolution radiographs and, if that does not reveal the cause of pain, diagnostic testing such as CT scans, MRI’s and bone scans, none of which the practitioner Defendants utilized in treating Plaintiff prior to recommending and performing invasive surgery.
12. Defendant SHANKLAND, a member of Defendant CAVITAT’s “Scientific Board of Advisors”, holds himself out to the public as a Ph.D. in anatomy, but, Plaintiff is informed and believes, received his Ph.D. degree in human anatomy from Summit University of Louisiana, an unaccredited institution which, Plaintiff is informed and believes, is a “mail order degree” facility with a “mail drop” address and a website which offers, among other sciences, dog grooming certificates.
13. Defendants SHANKLAND and PANA are owners of the Cavitat device and use the device as a diagnostic tool to diagnose NICO and other disorders of oral bone, tissue and teeth. Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendant SHANKLAND has claimed at various seminars in which he has been a speaker endorsing the sale of the Cavitat device that he is in the dental business to not only help people, but to make money and that the Cavitat device makes money for him, as much as $18,000 to $19,000 per month. Defendant SHANKLAND has further stated, Plaintiff is informed and believes, that the Cavitat device can determine blood flow in the jaw, which is erroneous, and that he can control the color of the squares which are the “diagnostic” tools in the Cavitat device to obtain a certain diagnosis by the manner in which he holds the device.
14. At such time as the Cavitat device was used on Plaintiff by Defendants SHANKLAND and PANA, said Defendants had not complied with investigational device exemption (IDE) and Institutional Review Board (IRB) requirements such that their use of the Cavitat device was beyond the labeling imposed by the FDA and thus, violated FDA regulations regarding human experimentation and constituted misbranding.
15. Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendants BOUQUOT, HUSSAR, SHEN, YOUNG, KULACZ, SHANKLAND and other defendants of which Plaintiff is not currently aware, conducted research without the knowledge and consent of their patients, including Plaintiff _______, by collecting data on those patients which Defendants ultimately included in published research papers for the purpose of obtaining approval of the Cavitat device, promoting NICO, and engendering future business for their own personal enrichment.
16. Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendant JONES has been the subject of a federal grand jury investigation for the unauthorized practice of medicine and has had complaints filed against him by licensed health care providers for practicing medicine without a license in connection with his advice relating to the Cavitat device.
17. The Cavitat device is an ultrasonic bone densitometer which does not render visual images of bone itself and is cleared by the Federal Drug Administration only as a Class II prescriptive device authorized under Section 510(k) of the FDA regulations with limited utility. The device is authorized to be used only as an adjunct to conventional radiographs and has not been found to be effective by the FDA for use in the diagnosis or treatment of any condition or disease.
18. Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and
capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate or
otherwise, of defendants sued herein as DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, and therefore sues said defendants by such
fictitious names. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and
upon such information and belief, alleges that each of the
defendants designated herein as a DOE is legally
responsible in some manner for the events and happenings
referred to herein and caused the damages proximately
thereby to Plaintiff as hereinafter alleged. Plaintiff
will seek leave of court
to amend this Complaint to show the true names and
capacities of the defendants designated herein as DOES
when the same have been ascertained.
19. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that, at various times herein mentioned, each of the defendants was the agent, servant, representative or employee of each of the remaining defendants and, in engaging in certain acts hereinafter alleged, was acting within the course and scope of said agency, service, representation, or employment and materially assisted the other defendants. Plaintiff is further informed and believes and thereon alleges that each of the defendants ratified the acts of the remaining defendants.
II
STATEMENT OF FACTS
20. On or about April 1996, Plaintiff _______ retained Defendant HUSSAR to diagnose and treat her complaints of toothaches on the upper right and upper left side of her mouth which she described as throbbing, gnawing, aching and nagging pain and potentially required a root canal. At said time, Defendant HUSSAR examined Plaintiff and reviewed x-rays, but provided no treatment.
21. On or about April 1996, at the time that Plaintiff _______ sought the professional dental services of Defendant HUSSAR, said Defendant maintained his office and held himself out to the general public as a competent and skilled osteopath, dentist and dental surgeon, although he was licensed by the State of Nevada as an osteopath and not as a general dentist. Plaintiff relied upon Defendant HUSSAR’s representations of skill and competency when retaining said Defendant to examine and treat her dental complaints.
22. On or about October 1, 1996, Plaintiff _______ returned to Defendant HUSSAR with continuing complaints that had not abated since her initial consultation. After re-examining Plaintiff, Defendant HUSSAR recommended that Plaintiff undergo surgery to alleviate her symptoms.
23. On or about October 1, 1996, at Defendant HUSSAR’s recommendation and inducement, Plaintiff underwent surgery, resulting in the removal of two teeth, specifically teeth #12 and #15, and the excision of a significant amount of the supporting bone surrounding the excised teeth and their adjacent areas.
24. On or about November 7, 1996, Defendant HUSSAR provided to Defendants BOUQUOT and MAXILLOFACIAL CENTER tissue and bone specimens from Plaintiff’s October 1, 1996, surgery and transmitted to said Defendants data, including information identifying Plaintiff by name, address, age, date of birth and social security number.
25. On or about October 11, 1996 and November 6, 1996, Defendants BOUQUOT and MAXILLOFACIAL CENTER generated biopsy report #HN96-2901 which reflected Defendants’ microscopic diagnoses and findings.
26. On or about January 23, 1997, Plaintiff _______ returned to Defendant HUSSAR with complaints which had not abated after her October 1996 surgery. At Defendant HUSSAR’s recommendation and inducement, Plaintiff underwent a second surgery, resulting in the removal of two teeth, specifically teeth #1 and #3, and the excision of a significant amount of the supporting bone surrounding the excised teeth and their adjacent areas.
27. On or about January 29, 1997, Defendant HUSSAR provided to Defendants BOUQUOT and MAXILLOFACIAL CENTER tissue and bone specimens from Plaintiff’s January 23, 1997, surgery and transmitted to said Defendants data, including information identifying Plaintiff by name, address, age, date of birth and social security number.
28. On or about March 5, 1997, Defendants BOUQUOT and MAXILLOFACIAL CENTER generated biopsy report #HN97-251 which reflected Defendants’ microscopic diagnoses and findings.
29. On or about June and July, 1997, Plaintiff _______ returned to Defendant HUSSAR with complaints which had not abated after her two prior surgeries by Defendant HUSSAR. At Defendant HUSSAR’s recommendation and inducement, Plaintiff underwent another surgery, resulting in the removal of two teeth, specifically teeth #18 and #19, and the excision of a significant amount of the supporting bone surrounding the excised teeth and their adjacent areas.
30. On or about August 19, 1997, Defendant HUSSAR provided to Defendants BOUQUOT and MAXILLOFACIAL CENTER tissue and bone specimens from Plaintiff’s July 30, 1997, surgery and transmitted to said Defendants data, including information identifying Plaintiff by name, address, age, date of birth and social security number.
31. On or about August 23, 1997, Defendants BOUQUOT and MAXILLOFACIAL CENTER generated biopsy report #HN97-2475 which reflected Defendants’ microscopic diagnoses and findings.
32. On or about October 30, 1997, Plaintiff _______ returned to Defendant HUSSAR with complaints which had not abated after her three prior surgeries by Defendant HUSSAR. At Defendant HUSSAR’s recommendation and inducement, Plaintiff underwent surgery resulting in the excision of a significant amount of bone in the area of tooth #31.
33. On or about November 12, 1999, Plaintiff _______ retained Defendants SHEN and YOUNG and their joint dental practice to diagnose and treat her continuing and unabated dental complaints.
34. On or about November 12, 1999, at the time that Plaintiff _______ sought the professional dental services of Defendants SHEN, YOUNG and their joint dental practice, Defendants maintained their dental office and held themselves out to the general public as competent and skilled dentists and dental surgeons licensed by the State of California Dental Board, and Plaintiff relied upon said representations of skill and competency when retaining said Defendants to examine and treat her dental complaints.
35. On or about November 12, 1999, at Plaintiff’s initial consultation with Defendants SHEN and YOUNG, Plaintiff further complained of chronic fatigue, a medical complaint. However, Defendants did not refer Plaintiff to a physician for consultation and work-up relating to her symptoms nor did Defendants postpone the recommended surgeries in order that Plaintiff’s medical complaints could be evaluated.
36. On or about November 12, 1999, at the recommendation and inducement of Defendants SHEN and YOUNG, Plaintiff underwent dental surgery, resulting in the removal of two teeth, specifically teeth #30 and #31, and the excision of a significant amount of the supporting bone surrounding the excised teeth and their adjacent areas.
37. On or about November 18, 1999, Defendants SHEN and YOUNG provided to Defendants BOUQUOT and MAXILLOFACIAL CENTER tissue and bone specimens from Plaintiff’s November 12, 1999, dental surgery and transmitted data to said Defendants, including information identifying Plaintiff by name, address, age, date of birth and social security number.
38. On or about November 23, 1999, Defendants BOUQUOT and MAXILLOFACIAL CENTER generated biopsy report #HN99-3761 which reflected Defendants’ microscopic diagnoses and findings.
39. On or about November 19, 1999, only seven days after Plaintiff _______’s extensive prior dental surgery by Defendants SHEN and YOUNG, said Defendants recommended and induced Plaintiff to undergo additional dental surgery, resulting in the removal of two teeth, specifically teeth #28 and #29, and the excision of a significant amount of the supporting bone surrounding the excised teeth and their adjacent areas.
40. On or about November 29, 1999, Defendants SHEN and YOUNG provided to Defendants BOUQUOT and MAXILLOFACIAL CENTER tissue and bone specimens from Plaintiff’s November 19, 1999, dental surgery and transmitted to said Defendants data, including information identifying Plaintiff by name, address, age, date of birth and social security number.
41. On or about December 7, 1999, Defendants BOUQUOT and MAXILLOFACIAL CENTER generated biopsy report #HN99-3916 which reflected Defendants’ microscopic diagnoses and findings.
42. On or about December 29, 1999, Plaintiff _______ returned to Defendants SHEN and YOUNG with complaints which had not abated after her two previous dental surgeries performed by said Defendants. At the recommendation and inducement Defendants SHEN and YOUNG, Plaintiff underwent additional dental surgery, resulting in the removal of one tooth, specifically tooth #2, and the excision of a significant amount of the supporting bone surrounding the excised teeth and their adjacent areas.
43. Thereafter, Defendants SHEN and YOUNG provided to Defendants BOUQUOT and MAXILLOFACIAL CENTER tissue and bone specimens from Plaintiff’s December 29, 1999, dental surgery and transmitted to said Defendants data, including information identifying Plaintiff by name, address, age, date of birth and social security number.
44. Upon receipt of the specimens from Plaintiff’s December 29, 1999 dental surgery, Defendants BOUQUOT and MAXILLOFACIAL CENTER generated biopsy report #HN2000-4 which reflected Defendants’ microscopic diagnoses and findings.
45. On or about August 3, 2000, Plaintiff _______ retained Defendant KULACZ to diagnose and treat her continuing and unabated dental complaints.
46. On or about August 3, 2000, at the time that Plaintiff _______ sought the professional dental services of Defendant KULACZ, Defendant maintained his dental office and held himself out to the general public as a competent and skilled dentist and dental surgeon licensed by the State of New York Dental Board, and Plaintiff relied upon said representations of skill and competency when retaining said Defendant to examine and treat her dental complaints.
47. On or about August 3, 2000, at Defendant KULACZ’ recommendation and inducement, Plaintiff _______ underwent dental surgery resulting in the excision of a significant amount of bone and tissue from the marrow spaces in the area of teeth #30 and #31 and from the area surrounding tooth #12.
48. On or about August 11, 2000, Defendant KULACZ provided to Defendants BOUQUOT and MAXILLFACIAL CENTER tissue and bone specimens from Plaintiff’s August 3, 2000, dental surgery and transmitted to said Defendants data, including information identifying Plaintiff by name, address, age, date of birth and social security number.
49. On or about August 16, 2000, Defendants BOUQUOT and MAXILLOFACIAL CENTER generated biopsy reports #HN2000-2830 and #HN2000-2837, respectively, which reflected Defendants’ microscopic diagnoses and findings.
50. At some time prior to March 18, 2002, Defendants CAVITAT and JONES sold to Defendant SHANKLAND a Cavitat device and solicited Defendant SHANKLAND to be a member of Cavitat’s “Scientific Board of Advisors” and thereafter, said Defendant used the Cavitat device.
51. On or about March 18, 2002, Plaintiff retained Defendant SHANKLAND to diagnose and treat her continuing and unabated dental complaints.
52. On or about March 18, 2002, at the time that Plaintiff _______ sought the professional dental services of Defendant SHANKLAND, Defendant maintained his dental office and held himself out to the general public as a competent and skilled dentist and dental surgeon licensed by the State of Ohio Dental Board, and Plaintiff relied upon said representations of skill and competency when retaining said Defendant to examine and treat her dental complaints.
53. On or about March 18, 2002, Defendant SHANKLAND performed a physical examination of Plaintiff, noting her extensive prior dental history, and performed a Cavitat examination of Plaintiff to determine the blood flow in her jaw. At the time that Defendant SHANKLAND performed a Cavitat examination, the Cavitat device and Cavitat technology had not been approved by the Federal Drug Administration, was not designed or equipped to assess vascular flow, and its clinical effectiveness had not been sufficiently demonstrated in the evidence-based medical community or supported with appropriately controlled studies published in peer-reviewed medical journals.
54. Based on the results of the Cavitat examination, Defendant SHANKLAND determined Plaintiff _______ to have excellent blood profusion in her jaw and recommended no treatment, although no studies have demonstrated that Cavitat technology can evaluate the flow of blood in a person’s jaw.
55. Plaintiff _______’s dental complaints did not abate, but worsened irrespective of the results of her Cavitat examination by Defendant SHANKLAND so on or about August 30, 2004, Plaintiff returned to Defendant SHANKLAND for further dental treatment.
56. At Plaintiff’s consultation with Defendant SHANKLAND on August 30, 2004, Plaintiff complained of chronic fatigue, sinus problems, depression, dizziness and nausea, and reported that she suffered from pernicious anemia and arthritis, conditions which commonly have medical origins. However, Defendant SHANKLAND did not refer Plaintiff to a physician for consultation and work-up relating to any or all of said symptoms nor did Defendant postpone the recommended surgery in order that Plaintiff’s medical symptoms could be evaluated.
57. On or about August 31, 2004, after physical examination, a second Cavitat examination and x-rays performed by Defendant SHANKLAND, Plaintiff underwent dental surgery at the recommendation and inducement of Defendant SHANKLAND who relied upon his Cavitat examination to recommend surgery, resulting in the excision of a significant amount of the bone in the mandibular left posterior region.
58. On or about September 3, 2004, Defendant SHANKLAND provided to Defendants BOUQUOT and MAXILLOFACIAL CENTER tissue and bone specimens from Plaintiff’s August 31, 2004, dental surgery and transmitted to said Defendants data, including information identifying Plaintiff by name, address, age, date of birth and social security number.
59. On or about September 12, 2004, Defendants BOUQUOT and MAXILLOFACIAL CENTER generated biopsy report #HN2004-3442 which reflected Defendants’ microscopic diagnoses and findings.
60. On or about October 18, 2004, when Plaintiff experienced no pain relief from the dental procedure performed by Defendant SHANKLAND, she returned to Defendant KULACZ for further dental treatment. At the recommendation and inducement of Defendant KULACZ, Plaintiff underwent additional dental surgery, resulting in the removal of three teeth, specifically teeth #11, #26 and #27, and the excision of a significant amount of the supporting bone surrounding the excised teeth and their adjacent areas.
61. On or about October 22, 2004, Defendant KULACZ provided to Defendants BOUQUOT and MAXILLOFACIAL CENTER tissue and bone specimens from Plaintiff’s October 18, 2004, dental surgery and transmitted to said Defendants data, including information identifying Plaintiff by name, address, age, date of birth and social security number.
62. On or about November 8, 2004, Defendants BOUQUOT and MAXILLOFACIAL CENTER generated biopsy reports #HN2004-4132 (regarding tooth #11) and #HN2004-4150 (regarding teeth #26 and #27), both of which reflected Defendants’ microscopic diagnoses and findings.
63. All of the health care providers who rendered treatment to Plaintiff in her quest to find relief from her constant and severe complaints for facial and jaw pain were practitioners of alternative/biological and/or integrative dentistry and all of them, in the dental surgeries identified herein, performed cavitation surgery to eradicate the disease from which each opined she suffered. To date, Plaintiff continues to have severe, unabating facial and jaw pain which is exacerbated by the fact that Plaintiff has had over ten teeth and extensive bone extracted by Defendants, forcing her to use ill-fitting and painful partial dentures and to undergo extensive and expensive reconstructive surgery.
64. On or about early 2004, Plaintiff retained Defendant PANA to diagnose her continuing and unabated dental complaints.
65. On or about early 2004, at the time that Plaintiff _______ sought the professional dental services of Defendant PANA, Defendant maintained his dental office and held himself out to the general public as a competent and skilled dentist licensed by the State of California Dental Board, and Plaintiff relied upon said representations of skill and competency when retaining said Defendant to examine and treat her dental complaints.
66. On or about early 2004, and on two separate occasions during that time period, Defendant PANA performed a Cavitat examination of Plaintiff to determine the blood flow in her jaw. At the time that Defendant PANA performed the Cavitat examination, the Cavitat device and Cavitat technology had not been approved by the Federal Drug Administration, was not designed or equipped to assess vascular flow and its clinical effectiveness had not been sufficiently demonstrated in the evidence-based medical community or supported with appropriately controlled studies published in peer-reviewed medical journals.
67. Based on the results of the Cavitat examination, Defendant PANA recommended treatment and by his statements to Plaintiff, aroused fear and apprehension in Plaintiff as to Defendant’s attribution of a connection between the alleged disease in her mouth and jaw and systemic disease in her body as demonstrated by the Cavitat findings. Based on the fear and apprehension which Defendant PANA caused in Plaintiff, Plaintiff _______ discontinued further treatment with said Defendant.
68. In or about October 2005, as a result of reading on the Internet about factual scenarios involving other dental patients with similar experiences to Plaintiff’s at the hands of the same dental practitioners and the subsequent review of her dental records by a consulting dental expert, Plaintiff _______ first became aware that her severe dental condition had been intentionally concealed by Defendants, and each of them, who, rather than advising Plaintiff that she had undergone the unnecessary removal of healthy teeth and bone, Defendants, and each of them, recommended and performed further unnecessary dental surgeries on Plaintiff, who remained uninformed and misled as to her true dental condition at the time of each of the dental surgeries identified herein.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(For Dental Malpractice Against Defendant SHANKLAND and
Does 1 through 5, inclusive)
69. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference all of the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 68 as though fully set forth.
70. Pursuant to Plaintiff’s retention of Defendants SHANKLAND and Does 1 through 5, inclusive, to diagnose and treat Plaintiff’s complaints of facial and jaw bone pain, chronic fatigue, pernicious anemia, arthritis, sinus infections, depression, swollen lymph nodes, dizziness and nausea, said Defendants rendered professional dental services in the diagnosis, treatment and care of Plaintiff.
71. In the course of Plaintiff’s treatment by Defendant SHANKLAND, he relied upon a Cavitat examination undertaken on August 30, 2004, to determine Plaintiff’s need for surgery to remove allegedly osteoporotic bone and to recommend dental surgery to Plaintiff.
72. On or about August 30 and August 31, 2004, Defendant SHANKLAND negligently failed to exercise the proper degree of knowledge, skill and competence in examining, diagnosing, treating and caring for Plaintiff by incompetently and negligently performing surgical services, resulting in the excessive, permanent and unnecessary loss of bone and tissue causing Plaintiff to suffer gross jaw and mouth disfigurement.
73. On or about October 2005, Plaintiff first became aware that bone and tissue had been unnecessarily removed during Plaintiff’s dental treatment with Defendants SHANKLAND and Does 1 through 5, inclusive, which was the cause of Plaintiff’s continuing complaints and would cause Plaintiff to undergo future reconstructive surgery. At the same time and not before October 2005 was Plaintiff aware of Defendant SHANKLAND’s relationship with Defendant CAVITAT.
74. As a proximate result of the negligence of Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff suffered the unnecessary loss of healthy bone marrow, resulting in the necessity for reconstructive activities, including surgery, augmentation and installation of prosthetic appliances.
75. As a further proximate result of the negligence of Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff has sustained injury to her health, strength and activity, all of which injuries have caused, and continue to cause, Plaintiff great mental, physical and nervous pain and suffering. Plaintiff will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to set forth the full amount of damage sustained as a result thereof when ascertained.
76. As a further proximate result of the negligence of Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff has sustained, and will continue to sustain, disabling, serious and permanent physical injuries, all to Plaintiff’s general damage in an amount presently unascertainable. Plaintiff will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to set forth the full amount of damage when ascertained.
77. As a further proximate result of the negligence of Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff has incurred medical, hospital and related expenses in a sum presently unascertainable. Plaintiff will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to set forth the full amount of damage when ascertained.
78. As a further proximate result of the negligence of Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff will in the future incur medical, hospital and related expenses , the exact nature and extent of which are currently unknown to Plaintiff. Plaintiff will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to set forth the full amount of damage when ascertained.
79. As a further and proximate result of the negligence of said Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff has sustained, and will in the future sustain, loss of earnings and loss of earning capacity, the exact amounts of which are presently unknown to Plaintiff. Plaintiff will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to set forth the full extent of her loss of earnings and loss of earning capacity when same are ascertained.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(For Dental Malpractice Against Defendants KULACZ
and Does 6 through 10, inclusive)
80. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference all of the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 68 as though fully set forth.
81. Pursuant to Plaintiff’s retention of Defendants KULACZ and Does 6 through 10, inclusive, to diagnose and treat her complaints of facial and jaw bone pain, said Defendants rendered professional dental services in the diagnosis, treatment and care of Plaintiff.
82. On or about August 3, 2000 and October 18, 2004,Defendant KULACZ negligently failed to exercise the proper degree of knowledge, skill and competence in examining, diagnosing, treating and caring for Plaintiff by incompetently and negligently performing surgical services, resulting in the excessive, permanent and unnecessary loss of teeth, bone and tissue causing Plaintiff to suffer gross jaw and mouth disfigurement.
83. On or about October 2005, Plaintiff first became aware that teeth, bone and tissue had been unnecessarily removed during Plaintiff’s dental treatment with Defendants KULACZ and Does 6 through 10, inclusive, which was the cause of Plaintiff’s continuing complaints and would cause Plaintiff to undergo future reconstructive surgery.
84. As a proximate result of the negligence of Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff suffered the unnecessary loss of healthy teeth and bone, resulting in the necessity for reconstructive activities, including surgery, augmentation and installation of prosthetic appliances.
85. As a further proximate result of the negligence of Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff has sustained injury to her health, strength and activity, all of which injuries have caused, and continue to cause, Plaintiff great mental, physical and nervous pain and suffering. Plaintiff will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to set forth the full amount of damage sustained as a result thereof when ascertained.
86. As a further proximate result of the negligence of Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff has sustained, and will continue to sustain, disabling, serious and permanent physical injuries, all to Plaintiff’s general damage in an amount presently unascertainable. Plaintiff will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to set forth the full amount of damage when ascertained.
87. As a further proximate result of the negligence of Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff has incurred medical, hospital and related expenses in a sum presently unascertainable. Plaintiff will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to set forth the full amount of damage when ascertained.
88. As a further proximate result of the negligence of Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff will in the future incur medical, hospital and related expenses , the exact nature and extent of which are currently unknown to Plaintiff. Plaintiff will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to set forth the full amount of damage when ascertained.
89. As a further and proximate result of the negligence of said Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff has sustained, and will in the future sustain, loss of earnings and loss of earning capacity, the exact amounts of which are presently unknown to Plaintiff. Plaintiff will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to set forth the full extent of her loss of earnings and loss of earning capacity when same are ascertained.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
(For Dental Malpractice Against Defendants SHEN and YOUNG
and Does 11 through 15, inclusive)
90. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference all of the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 68 as though fully set forth.
91. Pursuant to Plaintiff’s retention of Defendants SHEN, YOUNG and Does 11through 15, inclusive, to diagnose and treat her complaints of facial and jaw bone pain and chronic fatigue, said Defendants rendered professional dental services in the diagnosis, treatment and care of Plaintiff.
92. On or about November 12, 1999 and continuing thereafter through December 29, 1999, Defendants SHEN and YOUNG, jointly and individually, negligently failed to exercise the proper degree of knowledge, skill and competence in examining, diagnosing, treating and caring for Plaintiff by incompetently and negligently performing surgical services, possibly with the use of the Cavitat device as a diagnostic tool, resulting in the excessive, permanent and unnecessary loss of teeth, bone and tissue causing Plaintiff to suffer gross jaw and mouth disfigurement.
93. On or about October 2005, Plaintiff first became aware that teeth, bone and tissue had been unnecessarily removed during Plaintiff’s dental treatment with Defendants SHEN, YOUNG and Does 11 through 15, inclusive, which was the cause of Plaintiff’s continuing complaints and would cause Plaintiff to undergo future reconstructive surgery.
94. As a proximate result of the negligence of Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff suffered the unnecessary loss of healthy teeth and bone, resulting in the necessity for reconstructive activities, including surgery, augmentation and installation of prosthetic appliances.
95. As a further proximate result of the negligence of Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff has sustained injury to her health, strength and activity, all of which injuries have caused, and continue to cause, Plaintiff great mental, physical and nervous pain and suffering. Plaintiff will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to set forth the full amount of damage sustained as a result thereof when ascertained.
96. As a further proximate result of the negligence of Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff has sustained, and will continue to sustain, disabling, serious and permanent physical injuries, all to Plaintiff’s general damage in an amount presently unascertainable. Plaintiff will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to set forth the full amount of damage when ascertained.
97. As a further proximate result of the negligence of Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff has incurred medical, hospital and related expenses in a sum presently unascertainable. Plaintiff will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to set forth the full amount of damage when ascertained.
98. As a further proximate result of the negligence of Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff will in the future incur medical, hospital and related expenses , the exact nature and extent of which are currently unknown to Plaintiff. Plaintiff will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to set forth the full amount of damage when ascertained.
99. As a further and proximate result of the negligence of said Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff has sustained, and will in the future sustain, loss of earnings and loss of earning capacity, the exact amounts of which are presently unknown to Plaintiff. Plaintiff will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to set forth the full extent of her loss of earnings and loss of earning capacity when same are ascertained.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(For Dental Malpractice Against Defendants HUSSAR
and Does 16 through 20, inclusive)
100. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference all of the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 68 as though fully set forth.
101. Pursuant to Plaintiff’s retention of Defendants HUSSAR and Does 16 through 20, inclusive, to diagnose and treat her complaints of facial and jaw bone pain, said Defendants rendered professional dental services in the diagnosis, treatment and care of Plaintiff in the State of Nevada, irrespective of the fact that Defendant HUSSAR was not licensed to practice general dentistry in Nevada.
102. On or about April 1996 and continuing through October 30, 1997, Defendant HUSSAR negligently failed to exercise the proper degree of knowledge, skill and competence in examining, diagnosing, treating and caring for Plaintiff by incompetently and negligently performing surgical services, resulting in the excessive, permanent and unnecessary loss of teeth, bone and tissue causing Plaintiff to suffer gross jaw and mouth disfigurement.
103. On or about October 2005, Plaintiff first became aware that teeth, bone and tissue had been unnecessarily removed during Plaintiff’s dental treatment with Defendants HUSSAR and Does 16 through 20, inclusive, which was the cause of Plaintiff’s continuing complaints and would cause Plaintiff to undergo future reconstructive surgery.
104. As a proximate result of the negligence of Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff suffered the unnecessary loss of healthy teeth and bone, resulting in the necessity for reconstructive activities, including surgery, augmentation and installation of prosthetic appliances.
105. As a further proximate result of the negligence of Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff has sustained injury to her health, strength and activity, all of which injuries have caused, and continue to cause, Plaintiff great mental, physical and nervous pain and suffering. Plaintiff will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to set forth the full amount of damage sustained as a result thereof when ascertained.
106. As a further proximate result of the negligence of Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff has sustained, and will continue to sustain, disabling, serious and permanent physical injuries, all to Plaintiff’s general damage in an amount presently unascertainable. Plaintiff will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to set forth the full amount of damage when ascertained.
107. As a further proximate result of the negligence of Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff has incurred medical, hospital and related expenses in a sum presently unascertainable. Plaintiff will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to set forth the full amount of damage when ascertained.
108. As a further proximate result of the negligence of Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff will in the future incur medical, hospital and related expenses , the exact nature and extent of which are currently unknown to Plaintiff. Plaintiff will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to set forth the full amount of damage when ascertained.
109. As a further and proximate result of the negligence of said Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff has sustained, and will in the future sustain, loss of earnings and loss of earning capacity, the exact amounts of which are presently unknown to Plaintiff. Plaintiff will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to set forth the full extent of her loss of earnings and loss of earning capacity when same are ascertained.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(For Medical Malpractice Against Defendants HUSSAR
and Does 16 through 20, inclusive)
110. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference all of the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 68 as though fully set forth.
111. Pursuant to Plaintiff’s retention of Defendants HUSSAR and Does 16 through 20, inclusive, to diagnose and treat her complaints of facial and jaw bone pain, said Defendants rendered professional medical services in his osteopathic capacity to diagnose, treat and care for Plaintiff.
112. On or about April 1996 and continuing through October 30, 1997, Defendant HUSSAR negligently failed to exercise the proper degree of knowledge, skill and competence in examining, diagnosing, treating and caring for Plaintiff by incompetently and negligently performing surgical services, resulting in the excessive, permanent and unnecessary loss of teeth, bone and tissue causing Plaintiff to suffer gross jaw and mouth disfigurement.
113. On or about October 2005, Plaintiff first became aware that teeth, bone and tissue had been unnecessarily removed during Plaintiff’s dental treatment with Defendants HUSSAR and Does 16 through 20, inclusive, which was the cause of Plaintiff’s continuing complaints and would cause Plaintiff to undergo future reconstructive surgery.
114. As a proximate result of the negligence of Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff suffered the unnecessary loss of healthy teeth and bone, resulting in the necessity for reconstructive activities, including surgery, augmentation and installation of prosthetic appliances.
115. As a further proximate result of the negligence of Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff has sustained injury to her health, strength and activity, all of which injuries have caused, and continue to cause, Plaintiff great mental, physical and nervous pain and suffering. Plaintiff will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to set forth the full amount of damage sustained as a result thereof when ascertained.
116. As a further proximate result of the negligence of Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff has sustained, and will continue to sustain, disabling, serious and permanent physical injuries, all to Plaintiff’s general damage in an amount presently unascertainable. Plaintiff will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to set forth the full amount of damage when ascertained.
117. As a further proximate result of the negligence of Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff has incurred medical, hospital and related expenses in a sum presently unascertainable. Plaintiff will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to set forth the full amount of damage when ascertained.
118. As a further proximate result of the negligence of Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff will in the future incur medical, hospital and related expenses , the exact nature and extent of which are currently unknown to Plaintiff. Plaintiff will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to set forth the full amount of damage when ascertained.
119. As a further and proximate result of the negligence of said Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff has sustained, and will in the future sustain, loss of earnings and loss of earning capacity, the exact amounts of which are presently unknown to Plaintiff. Plaintiff will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to set forth the full extent of her loss of earnings and loss of earning capacity when same are ascertained.
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(For Conspiracy to Commit Fraud Against Defendants
BOUQUOT, SHANKLAND, PANA, CAVITAT, JONES
and Does 21 through 25, inclusive)
120. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference all of the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 68 as though fully set forth.
121. Plaintiff is informed and believes and, thereon alleges, that at times presently unknown to Plaintiff, Defendants BOUQUOT, SHANKLAND, PANA, CAVITAT, JONES and Does 21 through 25, inclusive, knowingly and wilfully conspired and agreed among themselves to perpetrate a fraud on the patients of Defendants HUSSAR, SHEN, YOUNG, KULACZ, and SHANKLAND in order to justify past and additional unwarranted dental treatment and to induce the patients of said Defendants to agree to said treatment for their own enrichment.
122. Pursuant to said conspiracy, Defendants BOUQUOT, SHANKLAND, PANA, CAVITAT, and JONES consistently promoted the use of the Cavitat device to diagnose non-existent cavitations, NICO and other purported jaw bone diseases in desperate patients, including but not limited to Plaintiff _______ who presented with other established diagnoses that might have readily explained “her pain” and said Defendants did so in order to justify wholesale surgical intervention.
123. Further pursuant to said conspiracy, and in furtherance thereof, Defendants BOUQUOT, SHANKLAND, PANA, CAVITAT and JONES falsely and fraudulently represented to Plaintiff that:
a. That the Cavitat device imaged diseases of the alveolar bones, including NICO, and was capable of assessing vascular flow;
b. That the clinical effectiveness of the Cavitat device had been sufficiently demonstrated in the evidence-based dental community;
c. That the Cavitat device was a reliable and effective diagnostic tool;
d. That the findings of a Cavitat examination would be consistent with and used in conjunction with conventional radiographs;
e. That the Cavitat device was the subject of Institutional Review Board supervised studies, the results of which were published in peer-reviewed journals;
f. That the Cavitat device was used for clinical experiments on human subjects with their consent;
g. That the Cavitat device was promoted and utilized by dental health practitioners for the benefit of their patients;
h. That the FDA had approved Cavitat as effective in the diagnosis of dental bone pathology;
i. That the Cavitat device had received full approval from the FDA to market the device for its promoted uses, including as a stand-alone diagnostic tool;
j. That Cavitat complied with FDA regulations and standard practices.
124. Defendants BOUQUOT, SHANKLAND, PANA, CAVITAT, JONES and Does 21 through 26, inclusive, demonstrated their agreement to perpetrate a fraud on Plaintiff, by virtue of the fact that they knew that the representations made by them were false and that the true facts were:
a. The Cavitat device tested only bone density;
b. The clinical effectiveness of the Cavitat device had not been sufficiently demonstrated in the evidence-based dental community;
c. The Cavitat device was not a reliable or effective diagnostic tool;
d. The Cavitat device routinely detected alleged defects and cavitations which were normal on a conventional radiograph;
e. The Cavitat device had not been the subject of appropriately controlled studies with IRB approval nor had any such studies been published in peer-reviewed journals;
f. The Cavitat device had been used in conjunction with clinical experiments on human subjects without their properly obtained written required informed consent;
g. The Cavitat device was promoted and utilized by dental practitioners for their own self-benefit and self-enrichment;
h. The FDA had expressly rejected the request to label and market the Cavitat device as capable of diagnosing NICO or identifying any specific bone pathology;
i. The FDA had given only limited marketing clearance to the Cavitat device and had rejected attempts to have the Cavitat device marketed as a stand-alone diagnostic tool;
j. Cavitat had introduced a device into interstate commerce that was adulterated and/or misbranded and promoted it for FDA unapproved or uncleared uses.
125. As a proximate result of the wrongful acts perpetrated by Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff was induced to undergo unwarranted and unnecessary dental treatment.
126. As a further proximate result of the wrongful acts perpetrated by Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff has sustained injury to her health, strength and activity, all of which injuries have caused, and continue to cause, Plaintiff great mental, physical and nervous pain and suffering. Plaintiff will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to set forth the full amount of damage sustained as a result thereof when ascertained.
127. As a further proximate result of the wrongful acts perpetrated by Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff has sustained, and will continue to sustain, disabling, serious and permanent physical injuries, all to Plaintiff’s general damage in an amount presently unascertainable. Plaintiff will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to set forth the full amount of damage sustained as a result thereof when ascertained.
128. As a further proximate result of the wrongful acts perpetrated by Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff has incurred medical, hospital and related expenses in a sum presently unascertainable. Plaintiff will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to set forth the full amount of damage sustained as a result thereof when ascertained.
129. As a further proximate result of the wrongful acts perpetrated by Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff will in the future incur medical, hospital and related expenses, the exact nature and extent of which are currently unknown to Plaintiff. Plaintiff will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to set forth the full amount of damage sustained as a result thereof when ascertained.
130. As a further proximate result of the wrongful acts perpetrated by Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff will in the future sustain, loss of earnings and loss of earning capacity, the exact amounts of which are presently unknown to Plaintiff. Plaintiff will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to set forth the full amount of damage sustained as a result thereof when ascertained.
131. The aforementioned acts of Defendants, and each of them, were wilful, wanton, malicious and oppressive, thereby justifying the award of exemplary and punitive damages as against Defendants CAVITAT, JONES and Does 21 through 25, inclusive.
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(For Conspiracy to Commit Fraud Against Defendants
BOUQUOT, HUSSAR, SHEN, YOUNG, KULACZ, SHANKLAND,
and Does 26 through 30, inclusive)
132. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference all of the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 68 as though fully set forth.
133. Plaintiff is informed and believes and, thereon alleges, that at times presently unknown to Plaintiff, Defendants BOUQUOT, HUSSAR, SHEN, YOUNG, KULACZ, SHANKLAND, and Does 26 through 30, inclusive, knowingly and wilfully conspired and agreed among themselves to perpetrate a fraud on the patients of Defendants HUSSAR, SHEN, YOUNG, KULACZ, and SHANKLAND in order to justify past and additional unwarranted dental treatment and to induce the patients of said Defendants to agree to said treatment for their own enrichment.
134. Pursuant to said conspiracy, and in furtherance thereof, Defendants BOUQUOT, HUSSAR, SHEN, YOUNG, KULACZ and SHANKLAND falsely and fraudulently represented to Plaintiff that:
a. Bone and tissue specimens from Plaintiff’s dental surgeries performed by each of said Defendants would be transmitted by Defendants HUSSAR, SHEN, YOUNG, KULACZ and SHANKLAND to and would be used by Defendant BOUQUOT for the sole purpose of performing valid and accurate microscopic analyses;
b. No medical information or materials other than bone and tissue specimens necessary for the performance of microscopic analyses would be provided by Defendants HUSSAR, SHEN, YOUNG, KULACZ and SHANKLAND to Defendant BOUQUOT;
c. Any medical information and/or materials supplied to Defendant BOUQUOT by Defendants HUSSAR, SHEN, YOUNG, KULACZ and SHANKLAND would be used exclusively for the performance of microscopic analyses, the results of which would be supplied only to Defendant surgeons and to Plaintiff;
d. The written authorizations signed by Plaintiff limited dissemination of medical information and materials pertaining to Plaintiff solely to information and materials necessary to perform microscopic analyses;
135. Defendants BOUQUOT, HUSSAR, SHEN, YOUNG, KULACZ, SHANKLAND and Does 26 through 30, inclusive, demonstrated their agreement to perpetrate a fraud on Plaintiff, by virtue of the fact that they knew that the representations made by them were false and that the true facts were:
a. Bone and tissue specimens from Plaintiff’s dental surgeries as performed by each of said Defendants were transmitted by Defendants HUSSAR, SHEN, YOUNG, KULACZ and SHANKLAND to and used by Defendant BOUQUOT for the purpose of obtaining biopsy results which were not supported by evidence and/or science, but which validated the bogus diagnoses of Defendants HUSSAR, SHEN, YOUNG, KULACZ, and SHANKLAND;
b. Bone and tissue specimens from Plaintiff’s dental surgeries performed by each of said Defendants were provided by Defendants HUSSAR, SHEN, YOUNG, KULACZ and SHANKLAND and utilized by Defendant BOUQUOT for the purpose of producing consistently fraudulent, inaccurate and/or misleading microscopic findings and results;
c. Bone and tissue specimens from Plaintiff’s dental surgeries as performed by each of said Defendants were utilized not only for microscopic analyses, but were utilized by Defendant BOUQUOT and others for research studies, research projects and as teaching materials and tools, with the full knowledge of Defendants HUSSAR, SHEN, YOUNG, KULACZ and SHANKLAND, but without Plaintiff’s knowledge and/or consent, in violation of California Health & Safety Code, §§ 24170-24179 et seq., The Protection of Human Subjects of Medical Experimentation Act;
d. Bone specimens, tissue specimens, photographs and radiographs pertaining to Plaintiff were utilized by Defendant BOUQUOT and others, with the full knowledge of Defendants HUSSAR, SHEN, YOUNG, KULACZ and SHANKLAND for research studies, research projects and as teaching materials and tools, in violation of California Health & Safety Code, §§ 24170-24179 et seq., The Protection of Human Subjects of Medical Experimentation Act;
e. Medical information and materials pertaining to Plaintiff were disseminated and utilized by Defendants BOUQUOT, HUSSAR, SHEN, YOUNG, KULACZ and SHANKLAND for purposes not covered by the limited written authorizations signed by Plaintiff in violation of the limited authority given by Plaintiff.
136. When Defendants BOUQUOT, HUSSAR, SHEN, YOUNG, KULACZ, SHANKLAND and Does 26 through 30, inclusive, made these representations, they knew them to be false. Defendants made such material misrepresentations with an intent to deceive Plaintiff and with the intent and reasonable expectation of inducing Plaintiff to rely upon these representations, all to Plaintiff’s detriment.
137. Plaintiff, at the time these representations were made by Defendants BOUQUOT, HUSSAR, SHEN, YOUNG, KULACZ, SHANKLAND and Does 26 through 30, inclusive, and at the time Plaintiff took the actions herein alleged, was ignorant of the falsity of Defendants’ representations and believed them to be true. In justifiable reliance on these representations, Plaintiff was induced to and did have performed unnecessary dental surgeries and other dental work and was coerced to and did sign authorizations for limited dissemination of medical information and materials, all of which she would not have agreed to had Plaintiff known the actual facts.
138. On or about October 2005, Plaintiff for the first time became aware that Defendants BOUQUOT, HUSSAR, SHEN, YOUNG, KULACZ and SHANKLAND had entered into a conspiracy to defraud her as described herein.
139. As a proximate result of the wrongful acts perpetrated by Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff was induced to undergo unwarranted and unnecessary dental treatment.
140. As a further proximate result of the wrongful acts perpetrated by Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff has sustained injury to her health, strength and activity, all of which injuries have caused, and continue to cause, Plaintiff great mental, physical and nervous pain and suffering. Plaintiff will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to set forth the full amount of damage sustained as a result thereof when ascertained.
141. As a further proximate result of the wrongful acts perpetrated by Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff has sustained, and will continue to sustain, disabling, serious and permanent physical injuries, all to Plaintiff’s general damage in an amount presently unascertainable. Plaintiff will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to set forth the full amount of damage sustained as a result thereof when ascertained.
142. As a further proximate result of the wrongful acts perpetrated by Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff has incurred medical, hospital and related expenses in a sum presently unascertainable. Plaintiff will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to set forth the full amount of damage sustained as a result thereof when ascertained.
143. As a further proximate result of the wrongful acts perpetrated by Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff will in the future incur medical, hospital and related expenses, the exact nature and extent of which are currently unknown to Plaintiff. Plaintiff will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to set forth the full amount of damage sustained as a result thereof when ascertained.
144. As a further proximate result of the wrongful acts perpetrated by Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff will in the future sustain, loss of earnings and loss of earning capacity, the exact amounts of which are presently unknown to Plaintiff. Plaintiff will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to set forth the full amount of damage sustained as a result thereof when ascertained.
EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(For Intentional Misrepresentation Against Defendants
HUSSAR, SHEN, YOUNG, KULACZ, SHANKLAND,
and Does 31 through 35, inclusive)
145. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference all of the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 68 as though fully set forth herein.
146. At each of the times as identified herein that Plaintiff sought dental treatment from Defendants HUSSAR, SHEN, YOUNG, KULACZ, SHANKLAND and Does 31 through 35, inclusive, said Defendants falsely and fraudulently represented to Plaintiff that:
a. Bone and tissue specimens from Plaintiff’s dental surgeries performed by each of said Defendants would be transmitted by Defendants HUSSAR, SHEN, YOUNG, KULACZ and SHANKLAND to and would be used by Defendant BOUQUOT for the sole purpose of performing valid and accurate microscopic analyses;
b. No medical information or materials other than bone and tissue specimens necessary for the performance of microscopic analyses would be provided by Defendants HUSSAR, SHEN, YOUNG, KULACZ and SHANKLAND to Defendant BOUQUOT;
c. Any medical information and/or materials supplied to Defendant BOUQUOT by Defendants HUSSAR, SHEN, YOUNG, KULACZ and SHANKLAND would be used exclusively for the performance of microscopic analyses, the results of which would be supplied only to Defendant surgeons and to Plaintiff;
d. The written authorizations signed by Plaintiff limited dissemination of medical information and materials pertaining to Plaintiff solely to information and materials necessary to perform microscopic analyses.
147. The above representations made by Defendants HUSSAR, SHEN, YOUNG, KULACZ and SHANKLAND were false. The true facts were:
a. Bone and tissue specimens from Plaintiff’s dental surgeries as performed by each of said Defendants were transmitted by Defendants HUSSAR, SHEN, YOUNG, KULACZ and SHANKLAND to and used by Defendant BOUQUOT for the purpose of obtaining biopsy results which were not supported by evidence and/or science, but which validated the bogus diagnoses of Defendants HUSSAR, SHEN, YOUNG, KULACZ, and SHANKLAND;
b. Bone and tissue specimens from Plaintiff’s dental surgeries performed by each of said Defendants were provided by Defendants HUSSAR, SHEN, YOUNG, KULACZ and SHANKLAND and utilized by Defendant BOUQUOT for the purpose of producing consistently fraudulent, inaccurate and/or misleading microscopic findings and results;
c. Bone and tissue specimens from Plaintiff’s dental surgeries as performed by each of said Defendants were utilized not only for microscopic analyses, but were utilized by Defendant BOUQUOT and others for research studies, research projects and as teaching materials and tools, with the full knowledge of Defendants HUSSAR, SHEN, YOUNG, KULACZ and SHANKLAND, but without Plaintiff’s knowledge and/or consent, in violation of California Health & Safety Code, §§ 24170-24179 et seq., The Protection of Human Subjects of Medical Experimentation Act;
d. Bone specimens, tissue specimens, photographs and radiographs pertaining to Plaintiff were utilized by Defendant BOUQUOT and others, with the full knowledge of Defendants HUSSAR, SHEN, YOUNG, KULACZ and SHANKLAND for research studies, research projects and as teaching materials and tools, in violation of California Health & Safety Code, §§ 24170-24179 et seq., The Protection of Human Subjects of Medical Experimentation Act;
e. Medical information and materials pertaining to Plaintiff were disseminated and utilized by Defendants HUSSAR, SHEN, YOUNG, KULACZ and SHANKLAND for purposes not covered by the limited written authorizations signed by Plaintiff in violation of the limited authority given by Plaintiff.
148. When Defendants HUSSAR, SHEN, YOUNG, KULACZ, SHANKLAND, and Does 31 through 35, inclusive, made these representations, they knew them to be false. Defendants made such material misrepresentations with an intent to deceive Plaintiff and with the intent and reasonable expectation of inducing Plaintiff to rely upon these representations, all to Plaintiff’s detriment.
149. Plaintiff, at the time these representations were made by Defendants HUSSAR, SHEN, YOUNG, KULACZ, SHANKLAND and Does 31 through 35, inclusive, and at the time Plaintiff took the actions herein alleged, was ignorant of the falsity of Defendants’ representations and believed them to be true. In justifiable reliance on these representations, Plaintiff was induced to and did have performed unnecessary dental surgeries and other dental work and was coerced to and did sign an authorization for limited dissemination of medical information and materials, all of which she would not have agreed to had Plaintiff known the actual facts.
150. In or about October, 2005, Plaintiff became aware for the first time of the intentional misrepresentations made to her by Defendants HUSSAR, SHEN, YOUNG, KULACZ, SHANKLAND and Does 31 through 35, inclusive.
151. As a proximate result of the wrongful acts perpetrated by Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff was induced to undergo unwarranted and unnecessary dental treatment.
152. As a further proximate result of the wrongful acts perpetrated by Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff has sustained injury to her health, strength and activity, all of which injuries have caused, and continue to cause, Plaintiff great mental, physical and nervous pain and suffering. Plaintiff will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to set forth the full amount of damage sustained as a result thereof when ascertained.
153. As a further proximate result of the wrongful acts perpetrated by Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff has sustained, and will continue to sustain, disabling, serious and permanent physical injuries, all to Plaintiff’s general damage in an amount presently unascertainable. Plaintiff will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to set forth the full amount of damage sustained as a result thereof when ascertained.
154. As a further proximate result of the wrongful acts perpetrated by Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff has incurred medical, hospital and related expenses in a sum presently unascertainable. Plaintiff will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to set forth the full amount of damage sustained as a result thereof when ascertained.
155. As a further proximate result of the wrongful acts perpetrated by Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff will in the future incur medical, hospital and related expenses, the exact nature and extent of which are currently unknown to Plaintiff. Plaintiff will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to set forth the full amount of damage sustained as a result thereof when ascertained.
156. As a further proximate result of the wrongful acts perpetrated by Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff will in the future sustain, loss of earnings and loss of earning capacity, the exact amounts of which are presently unknown to Plaintiff. Plaintiff will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to set forth the full amount of damage sustained as a result thereof when ascertained.
NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(For Intentional Misrepresentation Against Defendants,
BOUQUOT,
MAXILLOFACIAL CENTER and Does 36 through 40, inclusive)
157. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference all of the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 68 as though fully set forth herein.
158. At each of the times as identified herein that Plaintiff sought dental treatment from Defendants HUSSAR, SHEN, YOUNG, KULACZ, and SHANKLAND, Plaintiff signed authorizations on the letterhead of and created by Defendants BOUQUOT, MAXILLOFACIAL CENTER and Does 36 through 40, inclusive, entitled “Pathology Request” which, by their language, falsely and fraudulently represented to Plaintiff that:
a. Bone and tissue specimens from Plaintiff’s dental surgeries as performed by Defendants HUSSAR, SHEN, YOUNG, KULACZ and SHANKLAND would be used by Defendants BOUQUOT and MAXILLOFACIAL CENTER for the sole purpose of performing valid and accurate microscopic analyses;
b. Any medical information and/or materials supplied to Defendants BOUQUOT and MAXILLOFACIAL CENTER by Defendants HUSSAR, SHEN, YOUNG, KULACZ and SHANKLAND would be used exclusively for the performance of microscopic analyses, the result of which would be supplied only to Defendant dentists and to Plaintiff;
c. The written authorizations entitled “Pathology Request” signed by Plaintiff limited the dissemination of medical information and materials pertaining to Plaintiff solely to information and materials necessary to perform microscopic analyses.
159. The above representations made by Defendants BOUQUOT, MAXILLOFACIAL CENTER and Does 36 through 40, inclusive, were false. The true facts were:
a. The microscopic analyses performed by Defendants BOUQUOT and MAXILLOFACIAL CENTER on bone and tissue specimens from Plaintiff’s dental surgeries generated biopsy results which were not supported by evidence and/or science, but which validated the bogus diagnoses of Defendants HUSSAR, SHEN, YOUNG, KULACZ, and SHANKLAND;
b. The biopsy results generated by Defendants BOUQUOT and MAXILLOFACIAL CENTER from the bone and tissue specimens of Plaintiff’s dental surgeries were consistently fraudulent, inaccurate and/or misleading;
c. Bone and tissue specimens from Plaintiff’s dental surgeries were utilized not only for microscopic analyses, but were utilized by Defendants BOUQUOT and MAXILLOFACIAL CENTER for research studies, research projects and as teaching materials and tools, in violation of California Health & Safety Code, §§ 24170-24179 et seq., The Protection of Human Subjects of Medical Experimentation Act.
160. When Defendants BOUQUOT, MAXILLOFACIAL CENTER and Does 36 through 40, inclusive, made these representations, they knew them to be false. Defendants made such material misrepresentations with an intent to deceive Plaintiff and with the intent and reasonable expectation of inducing Plaintiff to rely upon these representations, all to Plaintiff’s detriment.
161. Plaintiff, at the time these representations were made by Defendants BOUQUOT, MAXILLOFACIAL CENTER and Does 36 through 40, inclusive, and at the time Plaintiff took the actions herein alleged, was ignorant of the falsity of Defendants’ representations and believed them to be true. In justifiable reliance on these representations, Plaintiff was induced to and did have performed unnecessary dental surgeries and other dental work and was coerced to and did sign authorizations for limited dissemination of medical information and materials, all of which she would not have agreed to had Plaintiff known the actual facts.
162. In or about October, 2005, Plaintiff became aware for the first time of the intentional misrepresentations made to her by Defendants BOUQUOT, MAXILLOFACIAL CENTER and Does 36 through 40, inclusive.
163. As a proximate result of the wrongful acts perpetrated by Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff was induced to undergo unwarranted and unnecessary dental treatment.
164. As a further proximate result of the wrongful acts perpetrated by Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff has sustained injury to her health, strength and activity, all of which injuries have caused, and continue to cause, Plaintiff great mental, physical and nervous pain and suffering. Plaintiff will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to set forth the full amount of damage sustained as a result thereof when ascertained.
165. As a further proximate result of the wrongful acts perpetrated by Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff has sustained, and will continue to sustain, disabling, serious and permanent physical injuries, all to Plaintiff’s general damage in an amount presently unascertainable. Plaintiff will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to set forth the full amount of damage sustained as a result thereof when ascertained.
166. As a further proximate result of the wrongful acts perpetrated by Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff has incurred medical, hospital and related expenses in a sum presently unascertainable. Plaintiff will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to set forth the full amount of damage sustained as a result thereof when ascertained.
167. As a further proximate result of the wrongful acts perpetrated by Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff will in the future incur medical, hospital and related expenses, the exact nature and extent of which are currently unknown to Plaintiff. Plaintiff will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to set forth the full amount of damage sustained as a result thereof when ascertained.
168. As a further proximate result of the wrongful acts perpetrated by Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff will in the future sustain, loss of earnings and loss of earning capacity, the exact amounts of which are presently unknown to Plaintiff. Plaintiff will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to set forth the full amount of damage sustained as a result thereof when ascertained.
TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(For Intentional Misrepresentation Against Defendants
CAVITAT,
SHANKLAND, PANA, JONES and Does 41 through 45, inclusive)
169. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference all of the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 68 as though fully set forth herein.
170. In the course of their business dealings and transactions, Defendants CAVITAT, SHANKLAND, PANA, JONES and Does 41 through 45, inclusive, knowingly and intentionally made false statements of material fact concerning the capabilities of the Cavitat device and the FDA’s approval of the Cavitat device, in the course of marketing, promoting and using the device to diagnose dental conditions in dental patients.
171. The representations made by Defendants CAVITAT, SHANKLAND, PANA and JONES were false.
172. When Defendants CAVITAT, SHANKLAND, PANA and JONES made these representations, they knew them to be false. Defendants made such material misrepresentations with an intent to deceive the general public, including Plaintiff, as to the effectiveness and validity of the Cavitat device and with the intent to deceive members of the general public, including Plaintiff, to rely upon these representations all to Plaintiff’s detriment.
173. Plaintiff, at the time these representations were made by Defendants CAVITAT, SHANKLAND, PANA and JONES, and at the time Plaintiff took the actions herein alleged, was ignorant of the falsity of Defendants’ representations and believed them to be true. In justifiable reliance on these representations and the claimed efficacy of the results of the Cavitat device in identifying disease in Plaintiff’s jaw and mouth, Plaintiff underwent unnecessary, harmful and debilitating dental surgery.
174. In or about October, 2005, Plaintiff became aware for the first time of the intentional misrepresentations made by Defendants CAVITAT, SHANKLAND, PANA and JONES.
175. As a proximate result of the wrongful acts perpetrated by Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff was induced to undergo unwarranted and unnecessary dental treatment.
176. As a further proximate result of the wrongful acts perpetrated by Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff has sustained injury to her health, strength and activit