"Bioesthetic" Dentist and Collaborator
Sued for Negligence and Fraud

Stephen Barrett, M.D.


Carey Bertsch, of Scottsdale, Arizona is suing two local dentists for negligence, battery, lack of informed consent, and conspiracy to commit fraud in connection with treatment they administered to her. Bertsch's complaint (shown below) states that in 2004, she sought advice from general dentist Thomas Wais about replacing a recently extracted tooth with a bridge or implant. Wais recommened treatment that included wearing braces and resurfacing and realigning many of her teeth. Collaborating with Wais, orthodontist Karen Berrigan administered procedures that the suit alleges were unnecessary and improper. As treatment progressed, Bertsch developed increasingly severe jaw, head, and neck pain that Wais falsely attributed to mercury poisoning. In 2008, Bertsch consulted a specialist in temporomandubular joint disorders who concluded that her pain was due to a bite dysfunction caused by the inappropriate treatment. The suit also charges that Wais failed to disclose that he was following the principles of "OBI dentistry" (also called "bioesthetic dentistry"), which is an unsubtantiated approach which postulates that an ideal model of jaw and tooth alignment provides a blueprint for optimal dental care.


SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA
FOR THE COUNTY OF MARICOPA

CAREY P. BERTSCH, and
ROBIN BERTSCH

Plaintiffs,

vs.

THOMAS D. WAIS, D.D.S.,
KAREN L. BERRIGAN, D.M.D.,
DOES 1 through 25 inclusive,

Defendants.


)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)



Case No. CV2009-050267

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
  FOR DAMAGES

  1. Dental Negligence (Against Wais)
  2. Lack of Informed Consent (Against Wais)
  3. Battery
  4. Intentional Misrepresentation
  5. Negligent Misrepresentation
  6. Violation of Statute ((Against Wais)
  7. Dental Negligence (Against Berrigan)
  8. Lack of Informed Consent (Against Berrigan)
  9. Violation of Statute (Against Berrigan)
  10. Conspiracy to Commit Fraud
  11. Loss of Consortium

COME NOW Plaintiffs CAREY P. BERTSCH and ROBIN BERTSCH and allege as follows:

PARTIES

1. Defendant THOMAS D. WAIS, D.D.S. (hereinafter referred to as “WAIS”) is, and at all times herein mentioned was, a dentist licensed to practice dentistry by the State of Arizona, holding license #D 3599, with his principal place of business located at 9188 East San Salvador Drive, Suite 102, Scottsdale, Arizona 85258 and, at all times herein mentioned, identified himself as a bioesthetic dentist and a member of the OBI Foundation for Bioesthetic Dentistry.

2. Defendant KAREN L. BERRIGAN, D.M.D. (hereinafter referred to as “BERRIGAN”) is, and at all times herein mentioned was, a dentist licensed to practice orthodontics by the State of Arizona, holding license #D 3549, with her principal place of business located at 20100 North 51st Avenue, Glendale, Arizona 85308.

3. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege 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. Plaintiffs are further informed and believe and thereon allege that each of the defendants ratified the acts of the remaining defendants.

4. Plaintiffs are ignorant of the true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate or otherwise, of defendants sued herein as DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, and therefore sue said defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and upon such information and belief, allege 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 Plaintiffs as hereinafter alleged. Plaintiffs 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.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

5. On or about February 2004, Plaintiff CAREY P. BERTSCH (hereinafter referred to as “CAREY”) sought dental treatment with John Stropko, D.D.S., who performed oral surgery to extract tooth #19, a root-canal treated tooth which had become diseased. CAREY experienced no problems with healing after the dental surgery performed by Dr. Stropko and was referred by him to Defendant Thomas D. Wais, D.D.S. (hereafter “WAIS”) for consultation as to the placement of an implant or a bridge over CAREY’s missing tooth site.

6. On or about February 21, 2004, CAREY retained Defendant WAIS for the sole purpose of an examination and consultation relating to the most effective manner in which to treat her missing tooth site. At the time of CAREY’s initial appointment with WAIS, CAREY was 45 years old and had no complaints of tooth, mouth, facial or jaw pain nor had she any complaints of head or neck pain.

7. At the time of CAREY’s initial appointment with WAIS, Defendant took digital photographs of CAREY’s mouth, however, WAIS did not perform a full and proper examination, did not have an MRI performed, did not take tomograms or obtain temporary bite mounts to determine the position of CAREY’s jaw joints pre-treatment in order to design a treatment plan that would correctly reconstruct CAREY’s bite plane and align her jaw joints in harmony with CAREY’s biology. WAIS did not make a dental diagnosis or a dental determination by any objective means to reach the conclusion that Plaintiff had a bite discrepancy.

8. On or about February 24, 2004, CAREY had a second appointment with WAIS who, with the assistance of his dental hygienist, performed a routine teeth cleaning and a periodontic examination.

9. On or about March 2, 2004, CAREY consulted with WAIS to obtain his recommendation for further treatment for her missing tooth site. WAIS made a 1-hour presentation with photographs and a slide show of dental treatment he proposed for CAREY which he advised her was necessary in order to determine a plan for her missing tooth site, although WAIS never devised a treatment plan for CAREY.

10. On or about March 24, 2004, WAIS made “Reflection” models of CAREY’s mouth and teeth. CAREY was told by WAIS that the diagnostic testing performed at this appointment was for the purpose of determining whether to provide CAREY a bridge or to place an implant in her missing tooth site.

11. On or about April 8, 2004, WAIS performed diagnostic testing for the placement of a MAGO splint which he explained to CAREY was necessary to get her joints “home” so that reconstruction of her missing tooth site could be accomplished most effectively, although WAIS had no rationale for the use of a MAGO splint and no criteria for assessing the value of using the MAGO splint in CAREY’s case.

12. In reality, a MAGO splint (acronym for Maxillary Anterior Guided Orthosis) is a non-FDA approved diagnostic bite splint designed to bring temporary harmony to jaw joints and muscles for the purpose of obtaining an accurate diagnosis of the relationship between a person’s upper and lower teeth. A MAGO splint is to be worn 24 hours a day, 7 days a week for a period of approximately 6-12 weeks for optimum diagnostic accuracy. It is not a treatment tool in and of itself and is a temporary, not a long-term, device. CAREY was not advised by WAIS on April 8th, or at any time thereafter, that the correct use of the MAGO splint was as a diagnostic tool and that it was not designed to be used therapeutically as it was in CAREY’s case.

13. On or about April 8, 2004, WAIS advised CAREY that she required orthodontic treatment in order to straighten her lower teeth prepatory to the placement of either a bridge or implant and referred CAREY to Defendant Karen L. Berrigan (hereafter “BERRIGAN”), although WAIS had not made a dental diagnosis to determine the benefit of orthodontic treatment.

14. On or about April 12, 2004, the MAGO splint was delivered to CAREY and fitted.

15. On or about April 15th, 19th, 22nd, and May 6, 2004, WAIS adjusted CAREY’s MAGO splint.

16. On or about May 10, 2004, and before CAREY had made an appointment with BERRIGAN or retained her professional services, WAIS consulted with BERRIGAN relating to CAREY’s case and provided her with CAREY’s x-rays.

17. On or about May 11, 2004, WAIS performed a periodontic examination and cleaned CAREY’s teeth with the assistance of his dental hygienist.

18. On or about May 19, 2004, CAREY retained Defendant BERRIGAN for the purpose of a consultation to determine the need for her to undergo orthodontic treatment. BERRIGAN performed an examination and advised CAREY that she required braces on both her lower and upper teeth.

19. On or about May 19, 2004, Defendants WAIS and BERRIGAN consulted as to CAREY’s dental condition and agreed on the necessity for the placement of braces on both CAREY’s upper and lower teeth.

20. During the summer of 2004 when CAREY was out of the state of Arizona and did not have appointments with either WAIS or BERRIGAN, Defendants WAIS and BERRIGAN consulted as to the course of CAREY’s treatment on June 28th, June 30th and July 22, 2004.

21. On or about October 11, 2004, and upon CAREY’s return to Arizona, WAIS cleaned CAREY’s teeth with the assistance of his dental hygienist, discussed with her the necessity for orthodontic treatment and admonished CAREY to commence orthodontic treatment with BERRIGAN as soon as possible.

22. On or about October 27, 2004, WAIS and BERRIGAN once again consulted, at which time WAIS, the general dentist, told BERRIGAN, the orthodontic specialist, that CAREY was ready to commence orthodontic treatment.

23. On or about November 1, 2004, WAIS adjusted CAREY’s MAGO splint and advised her to continue wearing it all the time (24/7). CAREY had now been directed by WAIS to wear the MAGO splint for 7 months, well past the generally accepted outer-range period of 3 months required for diagnostic purposes.

24. CAREY followed WAIS’ advice and attempted to wear the MAGO splint 24/7 since it had been delivered to her in early April 2004, however, it never fit correctly and caused CAREY pain which necessitated further adjustments by WAIS on November 8th, 10th, 15th, 22nd, 29th, December 2nd, and December 6, 2004. As of the December appointment, CAREY had been directed to wear the MAGO splint for a period of 8 months.

25. On or about November 17, 2004, CAREY underwent pre-treatment diagnostics with BERRIGAN and was again advised that she would require orthodontic treatment. BERRIGAN did not advise CAREY that she had any particular problems with her teeth or jaws other than anterior crowding of her lower teeth and particularly did not advise CAREY that she had posterior displacement of both condyles within the fossae.

26. On or about November 22, 2004, BERRIGAN consulted with WAIS as to her pre-treatment diagnostic findings.

27. On or about December 15, 2004, BERRIGAN placed orthodontic appliances (braces) on CAREY’s upper teeth, which caused CAREY immediate muscle contractions and tightness and discomfort in the back of her neck, base of her skull and upper back.

28. On or about January 2, 2005, BERRIGAN outlined her examination findings to WAIS:

a. Class I malocclusion with moderate overjet and extreme overbite;

b. Moderate arch length discrepancies;

c. Shortened roots on #’s 8 and 9; and

d. Anterior beaking of right condyle with posterior displacement of both condyles within their fossae.

None of these findings were discussed with CAREY.

29. On or about January 2, 2005, BERRIGAN discussed with WAIS her plan to treat CAREY on a non-extraction basis utilizing air-rotor stripping of buccal segments, with the objective of achieving a Class I occlusion with ideal overjet and overbite, a plan which was approved by WAIS. BERRIGAN’s objectives were not discussed with CAREY.

30. On or about January 2005 through March 2006, BERRIGAN performed monthly adjustments on CAREY’s braces and WAIS performed periodic teeth cleanings with the assistance of his dental hygienist, at which time he checked the progress of CAREY’s orthodontic treatment.

31. During this time period and specifically in or about the fall of 2005, CAREY complained to both WAIS and BERRIGAN of the increasing pain she was experiencing, which had become chronic and acute as a result of the orthodontic appliances and adjustments on both her upper and lower teeth.

32. On or about March 4, 2006, CAREY placed an emergency call to BERRIGAN, complaining of bizarre symptoms in her head, neck and back of her skull. BERRIGAN consulted with WAIS who, although he had not examined CAREY, recommended that she be prescribed Valium for her symptoms.

33. On or about March 6, 2006, in addition to prescribing Valium to alleviate CAREY’s pain symptoms, but without performing a work-up relating to her pain or rendering a diagnosis, WAIS made CAREY a “Best Bite” night guard for both her upper and lower front teeth. WAIS further admonished CAREY to return to wearing the MAGO splint irrespective of the fact that she was in the middle of orthodontic treatment. Neither the “Best Bite” night guard nor the MAGO splint alleviated CAREY’s symptoms.

34. Through May 2006, BERRIGAN made monthly adjustments of CAREY’s braces and on or about May 24th, removed CAREY’s upper braces and fitted CAREY with a flat plane retainer. CAREY continued to complain of severe chronic and acute pain to her head, face, neck and upper back and muscle contractions for which WAIS, on or about May 17, 2006, with no examination and no rationale, ordered re-fills of CAREY’s Valium prescription.

35. During this period of time, WAIS and BERRIGAN continued to consult on a frequent basis as to CAREY’s course of treatment with WAIS directing BERRIGAN as to the necessary orthodontic outcome.

36. On or about September 19, 2006, WAIS cleaned CAREY’s teeth with the assistance of his dental hygienist, took x-rays and performed another orthodontic check after which he consulted with BERRIGAN on September 20th with his recommendation for completing CAREY’s orthodontic treatment.

37. On or about November 29, 2006, BERRIGAN performed an orthodontic adjustment and advised CAREY that she believed that would be the last adjustment preparatory to removing the remaining braces from her mouth the next month.

38. On or about December 5, 2006, WAIS cleaned CAREY’s teeth, with the assistance of his dental hygienist, and advised her that further orthodontic adjustments were necessary and directed BERRIGAN to continue making monthly adjustments until he was satisfied that CAREY’s jaw joints and bite scheme were what he envisioned.

39. Pursuant to WAIS’ direction, BERRIGAN continued to make monthly orthodontic adjustments through February 7, 2007. As a result of the adjustment on or about February 7th, CAREY experienced increased pain, as well as numbness, burning, tingling and radiating pain down her left arm. WAIS recommended Aleve and Wobenzym, a vitamin supplement, and, without examination or re-assessment of CAREY’s condition, prescribed Flexeril to alleviate CAREY’s worsening symptoms. CAREY took Flexeril on a single occasion, but gained no relief from her pain. BERRIGAN diagnosed cervical spine entrapment, a medical rather than a dental diagnosis for which BERRIGAN did not refer CAREY to her primary care physician for examination.

40. On or about late February 2007, WAIS reworked and resurfaced CAREY’s MAGO splint. That splint never fit CAREY and never alleviated her pain symptoms which WAIS attributed to the fact that CAREY’s bite scheme had not settled in due to mercury poisoning in CAREY’s body.

41. Before making his diagnosis of mercury poisoning, WAIS conducted no diagnostic testing and rather referred CAREY to the Institute of Health Realities, a self-fashioned nutritionist business unlicensed as a medical facility, for blood work which it was unqualified to process or interpret for a disease which CAREY did not have.

42. On or about March 6, 2007, BERRIGAN removed CAREY’s remaining braces and provided CAREY with upper and lower retainers, including a permanent retainer bonded to CAREY’s lower front teeth which severely exacerbated her pain over the next 6-week period of time. The pain was so excruciating and of such a chronic nature that CAREY referred to that time period as “the most painful six weeks of my life”.

43. WAIS and BERRIGAN advised CAREY that the pain she was experiencing was a result of her teeth “settling” into their new bite structure, however, in an attempt to alleviate her pain and muscle contractions, on or about April 4, 2007, BERRIGAN prescribed Klonopin to alleviate or reduce CAREY’s pain symptoms, as well as her symptoms of dizziness, numbness, tingling and burning sensation.

44. BERRIGAN continued to prescribe Klonopin (branded Clonazepam) and generic Clonazepam from June through December of 2007 on at least a half dozen occasions to alleviate or reduce CAREY’s pain, numbness, tingling, dizziness and burning sensation.

45. At no time at any appointment CAREY had with WAIS did he mention the terminology OBI dentistry nor did he refer to the dental treatment he was performing on CAREY as OBI dentistry nor did he explain the concept behind OBI dentistry to CAREY.

46. When CAREY’s symptoms as a result of the treatment undertaken by WAIS and BERRIGAN did not abate, CAREY sought a consultation with Dr. Ronald Zastrow, a Colorado dentist who examined CAREY and referred her to Mark A. Piper, D.M.D., M.D., of The Piper Clinic, a recognized authority on TMJ disorders and pain management.

47. In or about January 8, 2008, CAREY consulted with Dr. Piper who examined her and performed several diagnostic procedures, including an MRI, a CT scan and made molds and impressions, concluding that CAREY suffered from multiple layers of pain caused by a bite dysfunction as a result of an extremely vertical bite scheme, from TMJ dysfunction and from Complex Regional Pain Syndrome.

48. On or about January 8, 2008, CAREY first became aware that the dental treatment she received from Defendants WAIS and BERRIGAN caused her injuries.

49. As of July 2009, CAREY’s residual complaints as a result of the treatment she received from WAIS and BERRIGAN have not resolved and CAREY continues to suffer from headaches, painful facial and neck muscles, upper back and shoulder pain, jaw joint soreness and pain, difficulty swallowing, difficulty and pain on chewing, shifting bite, ear pain, congestion and ringing in her ears, as well as burning pain in the face, head and neck and numbness, tingling and radiating pain down her left arm. CAREY continues to be treated for these ongoing and unabating symptoms with various medications, massage, acupuncture, and other modalities.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(For Dental Negligence Against Defendants
WAIS and Does 1 through 5, inclusive )

50. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein by reference all of the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 49 as though fully set forth.

51. Pursuant to CAREY’s retention of Defendants WAIS and Does 1 through 5, inclusive, to provide dental treatment in connection with her extracted tooth, said Defendants rendered professional dental services in the diagnosis, treatment and care of CAREY.

52. On or about February 21, 2004, at the time that CAREY sought the professional services of Defendants WAIS and Does 1 through 5, inclusive, said 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 Arizona Board of Dental Examiners, and CAREY relied upon said representations of skill and competency when retaining said Defendants to examine and treat her.

53. On or about February 21, 2004, and continuing thereafter through in or about April of 2007, Defendants negligently failed to exercise the proper degree of knowledge, skill and competence in examining, diagnosing, treating and caring for CAREY by incompetently and negligently performing dental treatment resulting in a severe vertical bite scheme that abnormally realigned CAREY’s jaw bones and caused CAREY to suffer from headaches, painful facial and neck muscles, upper back and shoulder pain, jaw joint soreness and pain, difficulty swallowing, difficulty and pain on chewing, shifting bite, ear pain, congestion and ringing in her ears, as well as burning pain in the face, head and neck and numbness, tingling and radiating pain down her left arm which will necessitate future medical and dental treatment.

54. On or about January 8, 2008, at the time CAREY sought dental treatment with Mark Piper, D.M.D., M.D., CAREY became aware for the first time that the dental treatment performed by Defendant WAIS had caused CAREY’s continuing complaints and necessitated the continuing treatment she has undergone and the future treatment which is contemplated.

55. As a proximate result of the negligence of Defendants, and each of them, CAREY suffered injury to her jaw joints and bite scheme, resulting in TMJ dysfunction, Complex Regional Pain Syndrome and the necessity for future surgical reconstructive treatment.

56. As a further proximate result of the negligence of Defendants, and each of them, CAREY has sustained injury to her health, strength and activity, all of which injuries have caused, and continue to cause, CAREY great mental, physical and nervous pain and suffering. CAREY will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to set forth the full amount of damage sustained as a result thereof when ascertained.

57. As a further proximate result of the negligence of Defendants, and each of them, CAREY has sustained, and will continue to sustain, disabling, serious and permanent physical and emotional injuries, all to CAREY’s general damage in an amount presently unascertainable. CAREY will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to set forth the full amount of damage when ascertained.

58. As a further proximate result of the negligence of Defendants, and each of them, CAREY has incurred medical, hospital and related expenses in a sum presently unascertainable. CAREY will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to set forth the full amount of damage when ascertained.

59. As a further proximate result of the negligence of Defendants, and each of them, CAREY will in the future incur medical, hospital and related expenses, the exact nature and extent of which are currently unknown to CAREY. CAREY will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to set forth the full amount of damage when ascertained.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(For Lack of Informed Consent Against Defendants
WAIS and Does 1 through 5, inclusive)

60. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein by reference all of the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 49 as though fully set forth.

61. Pursuant to CAREY’s retention of Defendants WAIS and Does 1 through 5, inclusive, to provide dental treatment in connection with her extracted tooth, said Defendants rendered professional dental services in the diagnosis, treatment and care of CAREY.

62. On or about February 21, 2004, and continuing thereafter through in or about April of 2007, in purported treatment of CAREY to perform reconstruction, either by implant or bridge, of her extracted tooth site, Defendant WAIS negligently failed to disclose to CAREY that he was performing OBI dentistry on her, negligently failed to disclose to CAREY the inherent risks involved in OBI dentistry which could radically modify a patient’s bite scheme and abnormally realign a patient’s jaw joints, negligently failed to obtain CAREY’s informed consent to perform OBI dentistry in his treatment of CAREY and negligently failed to advise the risks inherent in wearing a MAGO splint for an indefinite period of time.

63. If CAREY had been adequately informed of the type of dental treatment WAIS was performing and the inherent risk associated with OBI dentistry, including but not limited to the modification of CAREY’s bite scheme with an extreme vertical bite and the abnormal realignment of her jaw, CAREY would not have consented to said treatment.

64. On or about January 8, 2008, at the time CAREY sought dental treatment with Mark Piper, D.M.D., M.D., CAREY became aware for the first time that the dental treatment performed by Defendant WAIS had caused CAREY’s continuing complaints and necessitated the continuing treatment she has undergone and the future treatment which is contemplated.

65. As a proximate result of the negligence of Defendants, and each of them, CAREY suffered injury to her jaw joints and bite scheme, resulting in TMJ dysfunction, Complex Regional Pain Syndrome and the necessity for future surgical reconstructive treatment.

66. As a further proximate result of the negligence of Defendants, and each of them, CAREY has sustained injury to her health, strength and activity, all of which injuries have caused, and continue to cause, CAREY great mental, physical and nervous pain and suffering. CAREY will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to set forth the full amount of damage sustained as a result thereof when ascertained.

67. As a further proximate result of the negligence of Defendants, and each of them, CAREY has sustained, and will continue to sustain, disabling, serious and permanent physical and emotional injuries, all to CAREY’s general damage in an amount presently unascertainable. CAREY will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to set forth the full amount of damage when ascertained.

68. As a further proximate result of the negligence of Defendants, and each of them, CAREY has incurred medical, hospital and related expenses in a sum presently unascertainable. CAREY will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to set forth the full amount of damage when ascertained.

69. As a further proximate result of the negligence of Defendants, and each of them, CAREY will in the future incur medical, hospital and related expenses, the exact nature and extent of which are currently unknown to CAREY. CAREY will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to set forth the full amount of damage when ascertained.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
(For Battery Against Defendants
WAIS and Defendants 1 through 5, inclusive)

70. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein by reference all of the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 49 as though fully set forth.

71. In the course of the dental treatment performed by Defendant WAIS to purportedly provide CAREY with either a bridge or implant to replace her missing tooth, WAIS obtained CAREY’s consent to perform dental treatment which would result in the placement of either a bridge or an implant, but CAREY did not consent to OBI dentistry to be performed, including the modification of her bite scheme into an extreme vertical, or OBI, bite scheme resulting in the abnormal realignment of her jaw joints.

72. In performing OBI dentistry on CAREY without her knowledge, Defendant WAIS undertook and performed a substantially different treatment regime, namely OBI dentistry and the improper use of the MAGO splint, without CAREY’s knowledge and without her consent.

73. The conduct of Defendant WAIS was a substantial factor in causing CAREY’s harm.

74. On or about January 8, 2008, at the time CAREY sought dental treatment with Mark Piper, D.M.D., M.D., CAREY became aware for the first time that the dental treatment performed by Defendant WAIS had caused CAREY’s continuing complaints and necessitated the continuing treatment she has undergone and the future treatment which is contemplated.

75. As a proximate result of the conduct of Defendants, and each of them, CAREY suffered injury to her jaw joints and bite scheme, resulting in TMJ dysfunction, Complex Regional Pain Syndrome and the necessity for future surgical reconstructive treatment.

76. As a further proximate result of the conduct of Defendants, and each of them, CAREY has sustained injury to her health, strength and activity, all of which injuries have caused, and continue to cause, CAREY great mental, physical and nervous pain and suffering. CAREY will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to set forth the full amount of damage sustained as a result thereof when ascertained.

77. As a further proximate result of the conduct of Defendants, and each of them, CAREY has sustained, and will continue to sustain, disabling, serious and permanent physical and emotional injuries, all to CAREY’s general damage in an amount presently unascertainable. CAREY 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 conduct of Defendants, and each of them, CAREY has incurred medical, hospital and related expenses in a sum presently unascertainable. CAREY will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to set forth the full amount of damage when ascertained.

79. As a further proximate result of the conduct of Defendants, and each of them, CAREY will in the future incur medical, hospital and related expenses, the exact nature and extent of which are currently unknown to CAREY. CAREY will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to set forth the full amount of damage when ascertained.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(For Intentional Misrepresentation Against
Defendants WAIS and Does 1 through 5, inclusive)

80. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein by reference all of the allegations contained in paragraph 1 through 49 as though fully set forth.

81. On or about February 27, 2007, during CAREY’s dental treatment, Defendant WAIS falsely and fraudulently represented to CAREY that the failure of her teeth to “settle” into a comfortable and painless bite scheme was due to mercury poisoning in her body which WAIS diagnosed without conducting scientifically accepted and approved diagnostic testing and laboratory analysis.

82. The above representation made by Defendant WAIS was false. The true facts were that CAREY did not have mercury poisoning which WAIS could not have determined without diagnostic testing and that the reason her bite scheme was not “settling” was due to the OBI dentistry WAIS had performed on her and not due to the presence of mercury poisoning.

83. When Defendant WAIS made this representation, he knew it to be false as Defendant WAIS had not conducted any diagnostic testing to confirm mercury poisoning.

84. Defendant WAIS made such material misrepresentation with the intention of inducing CAREY to continue with the radical and invasive dental treatment (OBI dentistry) which he was performing without CAREY’s knowledge or her consent.

85. CAREY, at the time Defendant WAIS made this representation, was ignorant of the falsity of Defendant’s representation and believed it to be true. In justifiable reliance on the representation, CAREY was induced to and did continue with the radical and invasive dental treatment Defendant WAIS was performing which she would not have done if she had known the actual facts which were that CAREY’s symptoms associated with her non-settling bite scheme were the result of WAIS’ treatment and not of mercury poisoning.

86. As a proximate result of the misrepresentation made by Defendant WAIS, CAREY was induced to undergo further unwarranted invasive and radical dental treatment.

87. As a further proximate result of the misrepresentation made by Defendant WAIS, CAREY has sustained injury to her health, strength and activity, all of which injuries have caused, and continue to cause, CAREY great mental, physical and nervous pain and suffering. CAREY will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to set forth the full amount of damage sustained as a result thereof when ascertained.

88. As a further proximate result of the misrepresentation made by Defendant WAIS, CAREY has sustained, and will continue to sustain, disabling, serious and permanent physical and emotional injuries, all to CAREY’s general damage in an amount presently unascertainable. CAREY will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to set forth the full amount of damage when ascertained.

89. As a further proximate result of the misrepresentation made by Defendant WAIS, CAREY has incurred medical, hospital and related expenses in a sum presently unascertainable. CAREY will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to set forth the full amount of damage when ascertained.

90. As a further proximate result of the misrepresentation made by Defendant WAIS, CAREY will in the future incur medical, hospital and related expenses, the exact nature and extent of which are currently unknown to CAREY. CAREY will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to set forth the full amount of damage when ascertained.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(For Negligent Misrepresentation Against
Defendants WAIS and Does 1 through 5, inclusive)

91. Plaintiffs realleges and incorporates herein by reference all of the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 49 as though fully set forth.

92. On or about February 27, 2007, during CAREY’s dental treatment, Defendant WAIS falsely and fraudulently represented to CAREY that the failure of her teeth to “settle” into a comfortable and painless bite scheme was due to mercury poisoning in her body which WAIS diagnosed without conducting scientifically accepted and approved diagnostic testing and laboratory analysis.

93. The above representation made by Defendant WAIS was false. The true facts were that CAREY did not have mercury poisoning which WAIS could not have determined without diagnostic testing and that the reason her bite scheme was not “settling” was due to the OBI dentistry WAIS had performed on her and not due to the presence of mercury poisoning.

94. When Defendant WAIS made this representation, he had no reasonable ground for believing it to be true as Defendant WAIS had not conducted any diagnostic testing to confirm mercury poisoning.

95. Defendant WAIS made such material misrepresentation with the intention of inducing CAREY to continue with the radical and invasive dental treatment (OBI dentistry) which he was performing without CAREY’s knowledge or her consent.

96. CAREY, at the time Defendant WAIS made this representation, was ignorant of the falsity of WAIS’ representation and believed it to be true. In justifiable reliance on the representation, CAREY was induced to and did continue with the radical and invasive dental treatment Defendant WAIS was performing in the name of OBI dentistry, which she would not have done if she had known the actual facts which were that CAREY’s symptoms associated with her non-settling bite scheme were the result of WAIS’ treatment and not of mercury poisoning.

97. As a proximate result of the misrepresentation made by Defendant WAIS, CAREY was induced to undergo further unwarranted invasive and radical dental treatment.

98. As a further proximate result of the misrepresentation made by Defendant WAIS, CAREY has sustained injury to her health, strength and activity, all of which injuries have caused, and continue to cause, CAREY great mental, physical and nervous pain and suffering. CAREY will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to set forth the full amount of damage sustained as a result thereof when ascertained.

99. As a further proximate result of the misrepresentation made by Defendant WAIS, CAREY has sustained, and will continue to sustain, disabling, serious and permanent physical and emotional injuries, all to CAREY’s general damage in an amount presently unascertainable. CAREY will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to set forth the full amount of damage when ascertained.

100. As a further proximate result of the misrepresentation made by Defendant WAIS, CAREY has incurred medical, hospital and related expenses in a sum presently unascertainable. CAREY will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to set forth the full amount of damage when ascertained.

101. As a further proximate result of the misrepresentation made by Defendant WAIS, CAREY will in the future incur medical, hospital and related expenses, the exact nature and extent of which are currently unknown to CAREY. CAREY will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to set forth the full amount of damage when ascertained.

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(For Violation of Statute Against Defendants
WAIS and Does 1 through 5, inclusive)

102. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein by reference all of the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 49 as though fully set forth herein.

103. CAREY retained Defendants WAIS to render dental treatment for which he was licensed by the Arizona Board of Dental Examiners. The scope of the practice of dentistry as defined by Arizona Revised Statute §32-1202 is “the evaluation, diagnosis, prevention and treatment of human diseases, disorders and conditions of the oral cavity, the maxillofacial area and the adjacent and associated structures within the dentist’s scope of education, training and experience and according to the ethics of the profession and applicable law”.

104. At no time between February 21, 2004 and January 8, 2008, was Defendant WAIS licensed to practice medicine in the State of Arizona pursuant to Arizona Revised Statute §32-1401et seq.

105. On or about February 27, 2007, Defendant WAIS rendered a diagnosis of CAREY’s condition as mercury poisoning without the benefit of diagnostic testing or laboratory analysis and by doing so, was practicing medicine without a license. Defendant WAIS’ conduct in so doing was in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. §32-1202, insofar as WAIS was purporting to practice dentistry beyond the scope of his education, training and experience, outside the scope of dental practices and procedures in the community and in violation of the ethics of the dental profession.

106. On or about February 27, 2007, upon rendering a diagnosis of mercury poisoning and referring CAREY to the Institute of Health Realities, an unlicensed medical laboratory, WAIS delayed CAREY’s obtaining proper diagnosis and treatment by licensed medical healthcare providers of what could have been a serious medical condition.

107. As a proximate result of the misconduct by Defendant WAIS, CAREY has sustained injury to her health, strength and activity, all of which injuries have caused, and continue to cause, CAREY great mental, physical and nervous pain and suffering. CAREY will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to set forth the full amount of damage sustained as a result thereof when ascertained.

108. As a further proximate result of the misconduct by Defendant WAIS, CAREY has sustained, and will continue to sustain, disabling, serious and permanent physical and emotional injuries, all to CAREY’s general damage in an amount presently unascertainable. CAREY will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to set forth the full amount of damage when ascertained.

109. As a further proximate result of the misconduct by Defendant WAIS, CAREY has incurred medical, hospital and related expenses in a sum presently unascertainable. CAREY will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to set forth the full amount of damage when ascertained.

110. As a further proximate result of the misconduct by Defendant WAIS, CAREY will in the future incur medical, hospital and related expenses, the exact nature and extent of which are currently unknown to CAREY. CAREY will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to set forth the full amount of damage when ascertained.

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(For Dental Negligence Against Defendants
BERRIGAN and Does 6 through 10, inclusive)

111. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein by reference all of the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 49 as though fully set forth.

112. Pursuant to CAREY’s retention of Defendants BERRIGAN and Does 6 through 10, inclusive, to provide orthodontic dental treatment, said Defendants rendered professional dental services in the diagnosis, treatment and care of CAREY.

113. On or about May 19, 2004, at the time that CAREY sought the professional services of Defendants BERRIGAN and Does 6 through 10, inclusive, said Defendants maintained their dental office and held themselves out to the general public as competent and skilled dentists and orthodontists licensed by the State of Arizona Board of Dental Examiners, and CAREY relied upon said representations of skill and competency when retaining said Defendants to examine and treat her.

114. On or about May 19, 2004, and continuing thereafter through in or about December 2007, Defendants negligently failed to exercise the proper degree of knowledge, skill and competence in examining, diagnosing, treating and caring for CAREY by incompetently and negligently performing orthodontic treatment resulting in a severe vertical bite scheme that permanently realigned CAREY’s jaw bones and caused CAREY to suffer from headaches, painful facial and neck muscles, upper back and shoulder pain, jaw joint soreness and pain, difficulty swallowing, difficulty and pain on chewing, shifting bite, ear pain, congestion and ringing in her ears, as well as burning pain in the face, head and neck and numbness, tingling and radiating pain down her left arm which will necessitate future medical and dental treatment.

115. On or about May 19, 2004, and continuing thereafter through in or about December 2007, Defendants negligently failed to exercise the proper degree of knowledge, skill and competence in treating and caring for CAREY by negligently allowing Defendant WAIS (who was not an orthodontic specialist) to direct and manage CAREY’s orthodontic treatment rather than Defendants independently making judgments based on their special knowledge, skill and competence which would be in the best interests of CAREY.

116. On or about April 4, 2007, and continuing thereafter through in or about December 2007, Defendants negligently failed to exercise the proper degree of knowledge, skill and competence in treating and caring for CAREY by negligently prescribing Klonopin, an anti-anxiety (specifically panic disorders) and anti-seizure medication for which there is no dental indication and no dental purpose, for CAREY’s symptoms of pain, dizziness, numbness, tingling and burning sensation. Defendant BERRIGAN further failed to properly monitor CAREY’s use of Klonopin and CAREY’s progress while taking the drug which BERRIGAN prescribed.

117. On or about January 8, 2008, at the time CAREY sought dental treatment with Mark Piper, D.M.D., M.D., CAREY became aware for the first time that the dental treatment performed by Defendant BERRIGAN had caused CAREY’s continuing complaints and necessitated the continuing treatment she has undergone and the future treatment which is contemplated.

118. As a proximate result of the negligence of Defendants, and each of them, CAREY suffered injury to her jaw joints and bite scheme, resulting in TMJ dysfunction, Complex Regional Pain Syndrome and the necessity for future surgical reconstructive treatment.

119. As a further proximate result of the negligence of Defendants, and each of them, CAREY has sustained injury to her health, strength and activity, all of which injuries have caused, and continue to cause, CAREY great mental, physical and nervous pain and suffering. CAREY will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to set forth the full amount of damage sustained as a result thereof when ascertained.

120. As a further proximate result of the negligence of Defendants, and each of them, CAREY has sustained, and will continue to sustain, disabling, serious and permanent physical and emotional injuries, all to CAREY’s general damage in an amount presently unascertainable. CAREY will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to set forth the full amount of damage when ascertained.

121. As a further proximate result of the negligence of Defendants, and each of them, CAREY has incurred medical, hospital and related expenses in a sum presently unascertainable. CAREY will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to set forth the full amount of damage when ascertained.

122. As a further proximate result of the negligence of Defendants, and each of them, CAREY will in the future incur medical, hospital and related expenses, the exact nature and extent of which are currently unknown to CAREY. CAREY will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to set forth the full amount of damage when ascertained.

EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(For Lack of Informed Consent Against Defendants
BERRIGAN and Does 6 through 10, inclusive)

123. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein by reference all of the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 49 as though fully set forth.

124. Pursuant to CAREY’s retention of Defendants BERRIGAN and Does 6 through 10, inclusive, to provide orthodontic treatment, said Defendants rendered professional dental services in the diagnosis, treatment and care of CAREY.

125. On or about May 19, 2004 and continuing thereafter through in or about December 2007, in purportedly providing orthodontic treatment based on Defendants’ special knowledge, skill and expertise, Defendant BERRIGAN negligently failed to disclose to CAREY that she was not independently directing and managing CAREY’s orthodontic treatment, but was following the direction, input and recommendations of Defendant WAIS who was not an orthodontist and who had no special knowledge, skill or expertise in the field of orthodontics.

126. If CAREY had been adequately informed that BERRIGAN, the orthodontic specialist, was not independently directing and managing her treatment, CAREY would not have consented to said treatment.

127. On or about January 8, 2008, at the time CAREY sought dental treatment with Mark Piper, D.M.D., M.D., CAREY became aware for the first time that the dental treatment performed by Defendant BERRIGAN had caused CAREY’s continuing complaints and necessitated the continuing treatment she has undergone and the future treatment which is contemplated.

128. As a proximate result of the negligence of Defendants, and each of them, CAREY suffered injury to her jaw joints and bite scheme, resulting in TMJ dysfunction, Complex Regional Pain Syndrome and the necessity for future surgical reconstructive treatment.

129. As a further proximate result of the negligence of Defendants, and each of them, CAREY has sustained injury to her health, strength and activity, all of which injuries have caused, and continue to cause, CAREY great mental, physical and nervous pain and suffering. CAREY 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 negligence of Defendants, and each of them, CAREY has sustained, and will continue to sustain, disabling, serious and permanent physical and emotional injuries, all to CAREY’s general damage in an amount presently unascertainable. CAREY will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to set forth the full amount of damage when ascertained.

131. As a further proximate result of the negligence of Defendants, and each of them, CAREY has incurred medical, hospital and related expenses in a sum presently unascertainable. CAREY will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to set forth the full amount of damage when ascertained.

132. As a further proximate result of the negligence of Defendants, and each of them, CAREY will in the future incur medical, hospital and related expenses, the exact nature and extent of which are currently unknown to CAREY. CAREY will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to set forth the full amount of damage when ascertained.

NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(For Violation of Statute Against Defendants
BERRIGAN and Does 6 through 10, inclusive)

133. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein by reference all of the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 49 as though fully set forth herein.

134. CAREY retained Defendants BERRIGAN to render dental treatment for which he was licensed by the Arizona Board of Dental Examiners. The scope of the practice of dentistry as defined by Arizona Revised Statute §32-1202 is “the evaluation, diagnosis, prevention and treatment of human diseases, disorders and conditions of the oral cavity, the maxillofacial area and the adjacent and associated structures within the

dentist’s scope of education, training and experience and according to the ethics of the profession and applicable law”.

135. At no time between May 19, 2004 and January 8, 2008, was Defendant BERRIGAN licensed to practice medicine in the State of Arizona pursuant to Arizona Revised Statute §32-1401et seq.

136. On or about April 4, 2007, June 11, 2007, July 16, 2007, August 8, 2007, September 27, 2007, November 13, 2007 and December 12, 2007, Defendant BERRIGAN prescribed Klonopin, a habit-forming and addictive anti-anxiety and anti-seizure medication for which there is no dental indication and no dental purpose for CAREY’s symptoms of pain, dizziness, numbness, tingling and burning sensation, and by so doing, was practicing medicine without a license. Defendant BERRIGAN’s conduct in so doing was in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. §32-1202, insofar as BERRIGAN was purporting to practice dentistry beyond the scope of her education, training and experience, outside the scope of dental practices and procedures in the community and in violation of the ethics of the dental profession.

137. As a proximate result of the misconduct by Defendant BERRIGAN, CAREY has sustained injury to her health, strength and activity, all of which injuries have caused, and continue to cause, CAREY great mental, physical and nervous pain and suffering. CAREY will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to set forth the full amount of damage sustained as a result thereof when ascertained.

138. As a further proximate result of the misconduct by Defendant BERRIGAN, CAREY has sustained, and will continue to sustain, disabling, serious and permanent physical and emotional injuries, all to CAREY’s general damage in an amount presently unascertainable. CAREY will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to set forth the full amount of damage when ascertained.

139. As a further proximate result of the misconduct by Defendant BERRIGAN, CAREY has incurred medical, hospital and related expenses in a sum presently unascertainable. CAREY will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to set forth the full amount of damage when ascertained.

140. As a further proximate result of the misconduct by Defendant BERRIGAN, CAREY will in the future incur medical, hospital and related expenses, the exact nature and extent of which are currently unknown to CAREY. CAREY will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to set forth the full amount of damage when ascertained.

TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(For Conspiracy to Commit Fraud Against Defendants
WAIS, BERRIGAN and Does 11 through 20, inclusive)

141. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein by reference all of the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 49 as though fully set forth.

142. Defendant WAIS referred CAREY to Defendant BERRIGAN to undertake orthodontic treatment which would implement and compliment the OBI dentistry techniques WAIS was utilizing, unbeknownst to CAREY, in her dental treatment.

143. Defendants WAIS and BERRIGAN consulted frequently during the term of CAREY’s dental treatment in order to achieve the objective of radically changing CAREY’s bite scheme into an extreme vertical bite scheme that would require OBI reconstruction by WAIS.

144. Defendants WAIS and BERRIGAN knowingly and wilfully conspired between themselves, during the term of CAREY’s dental treatment by each of them, to perpetrate a fraud whereby their collaborated dental treatment would so radically change CAREY’s bite scheme and abnormally realign her jawbones that she would have no option but to return to WAIS for a full-mouth restoration to eradicate the damage that the cooperative treatment that WAIS and BERRIGAN had undertaken had caused.

145. Pursuant to said conspiracy and in furtherance thereof, Defendants WAIS and BERRIGAN falsely and fraudulently represented to CAREY that Defendants would have to jointly and cooperatively provide CAREY dental treatment in order to most effectively and appropriately prepare her mouth and teeth for a bridge or implant in her missing tooth site.

146. Defendants WAIS and BERRIGAN demonstrated their agreement to perpetrate a fraud on CAREY by virtue of the fact that they knew that the representation they made as to the necessity for joint and cooperative treatment was false and that the true facts were that the sole purpose of WAIS and BERRIGAN’s cooperative treatment of invasive and radical dental procedures and techniques was to precipitate further dental treatment.

147. Defendants WAIS and BERRIGAN knew their representations to be false and made such material representations with the intent to deceive CAREY and with the intent and reasonable expectation of inducing CAREY to rely upon these representations, all to CAREY’s detriment and to the unjust enrichment of Defendants WAIS and BERRIGAN.

148. At that time these representations were made by WAIS and BERRIGAN, CAREY was ignorant of the falsity of Defendants’ representations and believed them to be true. In justifiable reliance on these representations, CAREY agreed to the treatment recommended by Defendants WAIS and BERRIGAN to her detriment.

149. On or about January 8, 2008, at the time CAREY sought dental treatment with Mark Piper, D.M.D., M.D., CAREY became aware for the first time that the dental treatment performed by Defendants WAIS and BERRIGAN had caused CAREY’s continuing complaints and necessitated the continuing treatment she has undergone and the future treatment which is contemplated.

150. As a proximate result of the wrongful acts perpetrated by Defendants WAIS9 and BERRIGAN, CAREY was induced to undergo further unwarranted invasive and radical dental treatment.

151. As a further proximate result of the wrongful acts perpetrated by Defendants WAIS and BERRIGAN, CAREY has sustained injury to her health, strength and activity, all of which injuries have caused, and continue to cause, CAREY great mental, physical and nervous pain and suffering. CAREY will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to set forth the full amount of damage sustained as a result thereof when ascertained.

152. As a further proximate result of the wrongful acts perpetrated by Defendants WAIS and BERRIGAN, CAREY has sustained, and will continue to sustain, disabling, serious and permanent physical and emotional injuries, all to CAREY’s general damage in an amount presently unascertainable. CAREY will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to set forth the full amount of damage when ascertained.

153. As a further proximate result of the wrongful acts perpetrated by Defendants WAIS and BERRIGAN, CAREY has incurred medical, hospital and related expenses in a sum presently unascertainable. CAREY will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to set forth the full amount of damage when ascertained.

154. As a further proximate result of the wrongful acts perpetrated by Defendants WAIS and BERRIGAN, CAREY will in the future incur medical, hospital and related expenses, the exact nature and extent of which are currently unknown to CAREY. CAREY will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to set forth the full amount of damage when ascertained.

ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(For Loss of Consortium by Plaintiff ROBIN BERTSCH Against
Defendants WAIS, BERRIGAN and Does 1 through 20, inclusive)

155. Plaintiff ROBIN BERTSCH realleges and incorporates herein by reference all of the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 151 as though fully set forth.

156. Plaintiffs CAREY P. BERTSCH and ROBIN BERTSCH were, at all times herein mentioned, and are now, husband and wife.

157. By reason of the conduct of Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff CAREY P. BERTSCH was severely and grievously injured as set forth hereinabove.

158. By reason of the severe injuries and mental anguish suffered by Plaintiff CAREY P. BERTSCH, Plaintiff ROBIN BERTSCH has been denied, and continues to be denied, the conjugal society, comfort, affection, companionship and love of his wife, all to Plaintiff ROBIN BERTSCH’s general damage in a sum presently unascertainable. Plaintiff ROBIN BERTSCH will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to set forth the full amount of damage when ascertained.

159. By reason of the conduct of Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff ROBIN BERTSCH sustained, and continues to sustain, special damages in an amount presently unascertainable. Plaintiff ROBIN BERTSCH will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to set forth the full amount of damage when ascertained.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff CAREY P. BERTSCH prays for judgment against Defendants, and each of them, as follows:

FOR THE FIRST THROUGH TENTH CAUSES OF ACTION:

1. For general damages according to proof;

2. For medical and related expenses according to proof;

3. For future medical and related expenses according to proof;

4. For interest thereon at the legal rate;

5. For costs of suit incurred herein; and

6. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff ROBIN BERTSCH prays for judgment against Defendants, and each of them, as follows:

ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION:

1. For general damages according to proof;

2. For special damages according to proof;

3. For interest thereon at the legal rate;

4. For costs of suit incurred herein; and

5. For such other and further relief as to the Court may seem just and proper.

Dated: July 29, 2009

DAVID J. WILZIG

LAW OFFICES OF DAVID J. WILZIG
A Professional Corporation
1801 Century Park East, Suite 2200
Los Angeles, California 90067
Tel. (310) 286-1188
Fax (310) 286-2711

GREGORY PATTON
LAW OFFICES OF GREGORY PATTON
2828 North Central Avenue, Suite 1100
Phoenix, Arizona 85004
Tel. (602) 234-1555 Fax (602) 234-1563

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

This page was posted on July 31, 2009

Links to Recommended Companies