Offbeat Dentists Sued for Negligence

Stephen Barrett, M.D.


Alireza Panahpour, D.D.S., Leigh Erin Connealy, M.D., the South Coast Medical Center for New Medicine (now called the Center for New Medicine), oral pathologist Jerry E. Bouquot, D.D.S., and the University of Texas are being sued for negligence in connection with the treatment of a woman who sought hormonal treatment at the center. The complaint (shown below) states:

Panahpour and Bouquot are part of a small network of practitioners who are prone to diagnose and "treat" nonexistent jaw problems. Quackwatch has additional information about this.


SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE

ANNE HARRISON STONE,

Plaintiff,

vs.

ALIREZA PANAHPOUR, D.D.S.;
SOUTH COAST MEDICAL CENTER
FOR NEW MEDICINE, INC., a
California corporation; LEIGH ERIN
CONNEALY, M.D.; J.E. BOUQUOT,
D.D.S.; UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS
DENTAL BRANCH AT HOUSTON,
a Division of a Public University;
and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,

Defendants.


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

Case No.

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

  1. Negligent Hiring/Retention
  2. Dental Malpractice
  3. Lack of Informed Consent
  4. Medical Battery
  5. Sexual Battery
  6. Battery
  7. Intentional Misrepresentation
  8. Negligent Misrepresentation
  9. Dental Negligence

COMES NOW Plaintiff ANNE HARRISON STONE and alleges as follows:

PARTIES

11. Defendant ALIREZA PANAHPOUR, D.D.S. (hereinafter referred to as “PANA”) is, and at all times herein mentioned was, a dentist licensed to practice dentistry by the State of California, holding license #41661, with his principal place of business at 6 Hughes Avenue, Suite 100, Irvine, California 92618 and, at all times herein mentioned, was practicing biological dentistry as an employee or contractor of SOUTH COAST MEDICAL CENTER FOR NEW MEDICINE, INC., and advertising himself as a “holistic healer”. During the time of Plaintiff’s dental treatment, and unbeknownst to her, Defendant PANA was on probation with the DENTAL BOARD OF CALIFORNIA pursuant to a Stipulated Settlement and Disciplinary Order, the content of which is described herein, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit “1” and incorporated herein by reference.

2. Defendant SOUTH COAST MEDICAL CENTER FOR NEW MEDICINE, INC., a California corporation (hereinafter referred to as “SCMCNM”) is, and at all times herein mentioned was, a medical/dental facility registered to do and doing business in the State of California with its principal place of business located at 6 Hughes Avenue, Suite 100, Irvine, California 92618.

3. Defendant LEIGH ERIN CONNEALY, M.D. (hereinafter referred to as “CONNEALY”) is, and at all times herein mentioned was, a physician licensed to practice medicine by the State of California and the medical director and co-owner of SCMCNM, with her principal place of business located at 6 Hughes Avenue, Suite 100, Irvine, California 92618.

4. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that, at all times herein mentioned, Defendant PANA was the agent and/or employee of Defendants SCMCNM and CONNEALY and, in doing the acts hereinafter described, was acting in the course and within the scope of his authority as agent and/or employee, and in the transaction of the business of the employment or agency. Defendants SCMCNM and CONNEALY are, therefore, liable to Plaintiff for the acts of Defendant PANA hereinafter alleged under the doctrine of respondeat superior.

5. Defendant J. E. BOUQUOT (hereinafter referred to as “BOUQUOT”) is, and at all times herein mentioned was, an oral pathologist operating the Department of Diagnostic Sciences at the University of Texas, with its principal place of business located at 6516 M.D. Anderson Boulevard, Room 3.094F, Houston, Texas 77030. Defendant BOUQUOT billed California patients directly in the State of California and conducted business with Defendant PANA by performing biopsies on dental specimens in conjunction with said Defendant and sending reports of his findings to said Defendant in the State of California, thereby manifesting sufficient contact with the State of California to establish jurisdiction.

6. Defendant UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS DENTAL BRANCH AT HOUSTON (hereinafter referred to as “UT”) is a division of a public university with its principal place of business located at 6516 M.D. Anderson Boulevard, Room 3.094F, Houston, Texas 77030, which does business with practicing dentists in the State of California by performing biopsies on dental specimens pertaining to California dental patients and by billing California patients directly, thereby manifesting sufficient contact with the State of California to establish jurisdiction.

7. 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.

8. 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.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

9. On or about December 19, 2006, Defendant PANA entered into a Stipulated Settlement and Disciplinary Order with the Dental Board of California, wherein PANA agreed that the Dental Board could establish a basis for the allegations made in its Accusation No. DBC 2004-72 against PANA of incompetence, gross negligence, repeated acts of negligence, false, fraudulent or misleading statements, and unprofessional conduct.

10. Pursuant to the Decision and Order of the DENTAL BOARD OF CALIFORNIA dated February 22, 2007, Defendant PANA was placed on probation, effective March 22, 2007 through March 22, 2009.

11. On or about December 18, 2007, Plaintiff retained Defendant SCMCNM for a consultation relating to bio-identical natural hormone balancing to assist Plaintiff in sleeping better and to alleviate stress, at which time during her appointment with medical staff, Plaintiff was introduced to Defendant PANA with whom she consulted as to the potential toxicity of amalgam fillings.

12. On or about December 18, 2007, at the recommendation of SCMCNM, Plaintiff retained Defendant PANA to perform a dental examination, which he did in conjunction with conducting ART (autonomic response testing) and obtaining intraoral dental x-rays. As a result of conducting ART by placing medications on Plaintiff’s stomach and solar plexus, Defendant PANA determined that Plaintiff had mercury poisoning which required the removal of all of her amalgam fillings.

13. Further on December 18th, and as a result of his examination, Defendant PANA advised Plaintiff that she required two tooth extractions, needed repair work of her previous root canal treatment as the teeth were badly infected and required surgery to remove bone fragments from her two lower wisdom tooth sites where wisdom teeth had been extracted 45 years earlier. Defendant PANA further advised Plaintiff that the dental treatment he proposed needed to be accomplished immediately due to the critical condition of her teeth and mouth.

14. On or about December 19, 2007, at Defendant PANA’s inducement and recommendation, Plaintiff had amalgam fillings on teeth ##13, 15, 18, 19 and 20 removed and rather than replacing the amalgam fillings with composite material, Defendant PANA shaved down the teeth, necessitating the placement of expensive porcelain crowns and onlays.

15. Further on December 19, 2007, Defendant PANA treated Plaintiff with an IV immune support protocol consisting of sterile water, beet derived Vitamin C, calcium gluconate, potassium chloride and magnesium sulfate.

16. On or about December 20, 2007, at Defendant PANA’s inducement and recommendation, Plaintiff had amalgam fillings on teeth ##2, 3, 28, 29 and 30 removed and rather than replacing the amalgam fillings with composite material, Defendant PANA shaved down the teeth, necessitating the placement of expensive porcelain crowns and onlays.

17. Further on December 20, 2007, at Defendant PANA’s inducement and recommendation, Plaintiff had amalgam fillings on teeth ## 4 and 5 removed and replaced with resin-based composite material.

18. Further on December 20, 2007, Defendant PANA treated Plaintiff with intravenous vitamin and mineral therapy consisting of magnesium chloride, calcium gluconate, hydroxocobalamin, pyridoxine hydrochloride, dexpanthenol, B-complex, Vitamin C and thiamine.

19. On or about December 27, 2007, at Defendant PANA’s inducement and recommendation, Plaintiff underwent dental surgery resulting in the extraction of tooth #14 and the removal of significant healthy bone and tissue surrounding the tooth extending up to Plaintiff’s nasal cavity.

20. Further on December 27, 2007, at Defendant PANA’s inducement and recommendation, Plaintiff underwent dental surgery in a procedure identified by Defendant PANA as a “sequestrectomy for osteomyelitis”, resulting in the removal of significant bone at tooth site #17, the site of the surgical removal of Plaintiff’s wisdom tooth 45 years earlier.

21. Further on December 27, 2007, Plaintiff was fitted with crowns and onlays on the teeth which had previously been shaved down by Defendant PANA after removal of amalgam fillings.

22. Further on December 27, 2007, at Defendant PANA’s inducement and recommendation, Plaintiff had amalgam fillings on teeth ##12, 21, 22, and 27 removed and replaced with resin-based composite material.

23. Further on December 27, 2007, Defendant PANA treated Plaintiff with intravenous vitamin and mineral therapy consisting of magnesium chloride, calcium gluconate, hydroxocobalamin, pyridoxine hydrochloride, dexpanthenol, B-complex, Vitamin C and thiamine.

24. On or about December 28, 2007, Plaintiff was fitted with a bridge fabricated by Defendant PANA for placement over surgically removed tooth #14 and adjoining teeth ##13 and 15.

25. Further on December 28, 2007, Plaintiff was treated by Defendants PANA and SCMCNM with intravenous vitamin and mineral therapy consisting of magnesium chloride, calcium gluconate, hydroxocobalamin, pyridoxine hydrochloride, dexpanthenol, B-complex, Vitamin C and thiamine.

26. On or about December 30, 2007, Plaintiff, as a result of the dental surgeries and other procedures performed by Defendant PANA within a short 10-day window, Plaintiff experienced significant adverse and painful side effects, including:

27. On or about January 2, 2008, Plaintiff sought post-surgical treatment with Defendant PANA for the above-described complaints, for which PANA, to purportedly alleviate those complaints, performed neural therapy on Plaintiff, administering injections of procaine into areas below Plaintiff’s jawline, including an area no less than 2 inches below her neck and an area approximately 2 inches below her clavicle and on her upper breast.

28. Further on January 2, 2008, Plaintiff was treated by Defendants PANA and SCMCNM with an IV immune support protocol consisting of sterile water, beet derived Vitamin C, calcium gluconate, potassium chloride and magnesium sulfate.

Anadyne therapy machine.

29. Further on January 2, 2008, Defendant PANA fitted Plaintiff with an orthotic appliance, specifically a night guard, which was so tight and ill-fitting, Plaintiff was not able to use it for its intended purpose.

30. On or about January 8, 2008, Plaintiff consulted with Silvano Senn, D.D.S. in Sebastapol, California, who examined the dental work performed by Defendant PANA, removed Plaintiff’s surgical stitches and glued her bridge, however, advised Plaintiff that the dental treatment rendered by Defendant PANA had resulted in such adverse symptomology that he could not, without virtually re-doing all of PANA’s treatment, repair Plaintiff’s mouth and resolve her continuing complaints.

31. On or about January 10, 2008, Defendants BOUQUOT and UT generated biopsy report #UTDB2008-035, which reflected microscopic diagnoses and findings as to the specimens provided from Plaintiff’s December 27, 2007 dental surgery relating to the 1st molar area.

32. On or about January 10, 2008, Defendants BOUQUOT and UT generated biopsy report #UTDB2008-035, which reflected microscopic diagnoses and findings as to the specimens provided from Plaintiff’s December 27, 2007 dental surgery relating to the 3rd molar area.

33. Subsequent to the dental treatment performed by Defendant PANA on tooth #31 which was sanded down in anticipation of surgery, but for which no surgery was performed, Plaintiff contracted an infection due to a hole in the tooth caused by the severe sanding resulting in an infection for which Plaintiff required antibiotic treatment.

34. Subsequent to the dental treatment performed by Defendant PANA and as a result thereof, the teeth surrounding tooth #14 extracted by PANA (teeth #13 and #15) became infected and required root canal treatment due to the severity of the infection.

35. Subsequent to the dental treatment performed by Defendant PANA and as a result of the placement of a defective crown on tooth #2 which fell out, a replacement crown will have to be made and inlayed in Plaintiff’s mouth.

36. Plaintiff continues to have residual complaints as a result of the dental treatment performed by Defendant PANA and will require continuing restorative surgical and other treatment to repair Plaintiff’s teeth, mouth and jaw.

37. On or about August 1, 2008, and pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure, §364, Plaintiff caused Notice of Intent to Sue letters to be mailed by certified mail to Defendants PANA and SCMCNW at their principal place of business located at 6 Hughes Avenue, Suite 100, Irvin, California 92618. True and correct copies of said letters are collectively attached hereto as Exhibit “2” and incorporated herein by reference.

38. On or about October 23, 2008, and pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure, §364, Plaintiff caused Notice of Intent to Sue letters to be mailed by certified mail to Defendants BOUQUOT and UT at their principal place of business located at 6516 M.D. Anderson Boulevard, Room 3.094F, Houston, Texas 77030. True and correct copies of said letters are collectively attached hereto as Exhibit “3" and incorporated herein by reference.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(For Negligent Hiring/Retention Against Defendants
SCMCNM, CONNEALY and Does 1 through 5, inclusive)

39. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference all of the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 38 as though fully set forth herein.

40. On or about March 18, 2005, the DENTAL BOARD OF CALIFORNIA brought an ACCUSATION against Defendant PANA, under various and assumed names, for several acts of misconduct in the performance of professional dental services, including incompetence, gross negligence, repeated acts of negligence, false, fraudulent and misleading statements, obtaining fees by misrepresentation and unprofessional conduct.

41. On or about December 19, 2006, Defendant PANA entered into a Stipulated Settlement and Disciplinary Order with the DENTAL BOARD OF CALIFORNIA, wherein PANA agreed that the Dental Board could establish a basis for the allegations made in its Accusation No. DBC 2004-72 against PANA of incompetence, gross negligence, repeated acts of negligence, false, fraudulent or misleading statements, and unprofessional conduct.

42. Pursuant to the Decision and Order of the DENTAL BOARD OF CALIFORNIA dated February 22, 2007, Defendant PANA was placed on probation, effective March 22, 2007 through March 22, 2009.

43. At all times herein mentioned, Defendants SCMCNM and CONNEALY had a duty to the patients of SCMCNM, including Plaintiff, to hire and retain competent, experienced and qualified professional staff, including the dentists who worked under the auspices of SCMCNM.

44. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants SCMCNM and CONNEALY knew, or in the exercise of reasonable diligence, including but not limited to investigation of Defendant PANA’s licensure status, should have known that PANA was unfit and incompetent to perform the duties for which he was hired and/or retained, namely professional dental services, and that an undue risk to patients, including Plaintiff, would exist as a result of PANA’s hiring and/or retention.

45. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants SCMCNM and CONNEALY knew, or in the exercise of reasonable diligence, including investigation into PANA’s prior litigation history, should have known that, in multiple lawsuits, allegations of Medicare fraud, sexual battery in touching intimate parts of female patients’ bodies and other acts of unprofessional conduct had been made against PANA to some of which PANA had asserted his 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination and, based thereon, PANA was unfit and incompetent to perform the duties for which he was hired and/or retained, namely professional dental services, and that an undue risk to patients, including Plaintiff, would exist as a result of PANA’s hiring and/or retention.

46. Despite this advance knowledge, Defendants SCMCNM and CONNEALY breached their duty of care to the patients of SCMCNM, including Plaintiff, by hiring and/or retaining Defendant PANA as an employee and/or independent contractor performing professional dental services, as such employment and/or retention was in conscious disregard of the rights and safety of SCMCNM’s patients, including Plaintiff, as PANA had been disciplined and placed on probation by the DENTAL BOARD OF CALIFORNIA for gross incompetence and repeated acts of negligence in the performance of professional dental services.

47. As a proximate result of the wrongful conduct of Defendants SCMCNM and CONNEALY, Plaintiff was induced to undergo unwarranted and unnecessary dental treatment.

48. As a further proximate result of the wrongful conduct of Defendants SCMCNM and CONNEALY, 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.

49. As a further proximate result of the wrongful conduct of Defendants SCMCNM and CONNEALY, Plaintiff has sustained, and will continue to sustain, disabling, serious and permanent physical and emotional 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.

50. As a further proximate result of the wrongful conduct of Defendants SCMCNM and CONNEALY, Plaintiff has incurred medical, hospital, psychological 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.

51. As a further proximate result of the wrongful conduct of Defendants SCMCNM and CONNEALY, Plaintiff will in the future incur medical, hospital, psychological 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.

52. As a further proximate result of the wrongful conduct of Defendants SCMCNM and CONNEALY, and each of them, Plaintiff will in the future sustain loss of earnings and loss of earning capacity, 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.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(For Dental Malpractice Against Defendants
PANA, SCMCNM and Does 6 through 10, inclusive)

53. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference all of the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 38 as though fully set forth.

54. Pursuant to Plaintiff’s retention of Defendants PANA, SCMCNM and Does 1 through 5, inclusive, to diagnose and treat her dental complaints, said Defendants rendered professional dental services in the diagnosis, treatment and care of Plaintiff.

55. On or about December 18, 2007, at the time Plaintiff sought the professional services of Defendants PANA and SCMCNM, 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 DENTAL BOARD OF CALIFORNIA, and Plaintiff relied upon said representations of skill and competency when retaining said Defendants to examine and treat her.

56. On or about December 18, 2007, at the time that Plaintiff sought the professional services of Defendants PANA and SCMCNM and throughout Plaintiff’s dental treatment, Defendants did not inform Plaintiff that Defendant PANA was on probation with the DENTAL BOARD OF CALIFORNIA.

57. On or about December 18, 2007, and continuing thereafter through in or about January 2008, Defendants, 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 dental and surgical services, resulting in the extraction of a healthy tooth, removal of healthy bone from several surgical sites, the placement of crowns and onlays which were not dentally necessary for the preservation of Plaintiff’s teeth, and the fabrication and placement of an ill-fitting bridge, all of which have caused Plaintiff facial and jaw pain and bruising, difficulty chewing, difficulty closing her teeth and infection necessitating medical treatment and subsequent dental surgeries, and all of which were solely caused by Defendants’ negligence.

58. As a proximate result of the negligence of Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff suffered injury, resulting in the necessity for reconstructive surgeries and restorative dental and medical treatment.

59. 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.

60. 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.

61. 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.

62. 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.

63. As a further proximate result of the negligence of Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff will in the future sustain loss of earnings and loss of earning capacity, 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.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
(For Lack of Informed Consent Against Defendants
PANA, SCMCNM and Does 6 through 10, inclusive)

64. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference all of the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 38 as though fully set forth herein.

65. Pursuant to Plaintiff’s retention of Defendants PANA, SCMCNM and Does 6 through 10, inclusive, to diagnose and treat her dental complaints, said Defendants rendered professional dental services in the diagnosis, treatment and care of Plaintiff.

66. On or about December 18, 2007, and continuing thereafter through January 2008, in purported treatment of Plaintiff’s ongoing complaints, including but not limited to, surgery to extract tooth #14, surgery to remove bone from tooth site #17 and severe sanding of multiple teeth for the placement of unnecessary crowns and onlays, Defendants PANA and SCMCNM, jointly and individually, negligently failed to disclose to Plaintiff the inherent risks involved in the excision of teeth and bone from Plaintiff’s mouth during the aforementioned surgical procedures and negligently failed to obtain Plaintiff’s informed consent for the excision of teeth and bone in light of the undisclosed risks.

67. If Plaintiff had been adequately informed of the inherent risk associated with the excision of teeth and bone, including but not limited to, facial and jaw pain and disfigurement, Plaintiff would not have consented to said treatment.

68. As a proximate result of the conduct of Defendants, and each of them, in improperly and unnecessarily excising healthy teeth and bone from Plaintiff’s mouth without Plaintiff’s consent and without advising Plaintiff of the inherent risks involved in the excision of teeth and bone, Plaintiff suffered facial and jaw pain and disfigurement, resulting in the necessity for restorative dental and medical treatment.

69. As a further proximate result of the conduct 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.

70. As a further proximate result of the conduct 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.

71. As a further proximate result of the conduct 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.

72. As a further proximate result of the conduct 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.

73. As a further proximate result of the wrongful conduct of Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff will in the future sustain loss of earnings and loss of earning capacity, 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.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(For Medical Battery Against Defendants
PANA, SCMCNM and Does 6 through 10, inclusive)

74. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference all of the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 38 as though fully set forth herein.

75. In the course of the dental surgery and treatment performed by Defendants PANA and SCMCNM to purportedly treat Plaintiff’s dental complaints, Defendants obtained Plaintiff’s consent to remove mercury amalgam fillings and to remove tooth #14 and to have bone fragments only removed from tooth site #17, but Plaintiff did not consent to wholesale surgical procedures wherein substantial portions of healthy bone and tissue were removed.

76. In addition to performing removal of Plaintiff’s mercury amalgam fillings and the surgical procedures involving tooth #14 and tooth site #17, Defendants PANA and SCMCNM performed substantially different procedures, wherein they removed significant portions of healthy bone and tissue surrounding tooth #14 and from tooth site #17. without Plaintiff’s knowledge and without her consent.

77. The conduct of Defendants PANA and SCMCNM was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff’s harm.

78. As a proximate result of the wrongful conduct 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.

79. As a further proximate result of the wrongful conduct 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 sustained as a result thereof when ascertained.

80. As a further proximate result of the wrongful conduct 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 sustained as a result thereof when ascertained.

81. As a further proximate result of the wrongful conduct 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 sustained as a result thereof when ascertained.

82. As a further proximate result of the wrongful conduct of Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff will in the future sustain loss of earnings and loss of earning capacity, 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.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(For Sexual Battery Against Defendants
PANA, SCMCNM and Does 11 through 15, inclusive)

83. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference all of the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 38 as though fully set forth herein.

84. Pursuant to Plaintiff’s retention of Defendants PANA, SCMCNM and Does 11 through 15, inclusive, to diagnose and treat her dental complaints, said Defendants rendered professional dental services in the diagnosis, treatment and care of Plaintiff.

85. On or about January 2, 2008, and in purported treatment of Plaintiff’s ongoing dental complaints, Defendant PANA performed neural therapy on Plaintiff, intentionally administering procaine injections into an area approximately 2 inches below her clavicle and on her upper breast, an intimate part of Plaintiff’s anatomy.

86. The neural therapy treatment which Defendant PANA performed on Plaintiff was an intentional and sexually offensive contact with intimate parts of Plaintiff’s anatomy to which Plaintiff did not consent.

87. As a proximate result of the wrongful conduct 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.

88. As a further proximate result of the wrongful conduct 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 sustained as a result thereof when ascertained.

89. As a further proximate result of the wrongful conduct 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 sustained as a result thereof when ascertained.

90. As a further proximate result of the wrongful conduct 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 sustained as a result thereof when ascertained.

91. As a further proximate result of the wrongful conduct of Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff will in the future sustain loss of earnings and loss of earning capacity, 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.

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(For Battery Against Defendants PANA,
SCMCNM and Does 11 through 15, inclusive)

92. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference all of the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 38 as though fully set forth herein.

93. Pursuant to Plaintiff’s retention of Defendants PANA, SCMCNM and Does 11 through 15, inclusive, to diagnose and treat her dental complaints, said Defendants rendered professional dental services in the diagnosis, treatment and care of Plaintiff.

94. On or about January 2, 2008, and in purported treatment of Plaintiff’s ongoing dental complaints, Defendant PANA performed neural therapy on Plaintiff, intentionally administering procaine injections into an area no less than 2 inches below her neck and an area approximately 2 inches below her clavicle and on her upper breast, treatment to which Plaintiff did not consent.

95. The neural therapy treatment performed by Defendant PANA on parts of Plaintiff’s body below her jawline was offensive and beyond the scope of Defendant’s knowledge, skill and experience and outside the scope of dental practices and procedures in the community.

96. As a proximate result of the conduct 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.

97. As a further proximate result of the conduct 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.

98. As a further proximate result of the conduct 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.

99. As a further proximate result of the conduct 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.

100. As a further proximate result of the wrongful conduct of Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff will in the future sustain loss of earnings and loss of earning capacity, 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.

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(For Intentional Misrepresentation Against Defendants
PANA, SCMCNM and Does 16 through 20, inclusive)

101. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference all of the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 38 as though fully set forth herein.

102. On or about December 18, 19, 20, 27 and 28, 2007, during Plaintiff’s dental treatment, Defendant PANA falsely and fraudulently represented to Plaintiff that:

a. Plaintiff had mercury poisoning;

b. Mercury poisoning could be diagnosed upon visual examination without conducting scientifically accepted and approved diagnostic testing and laboratory analysis;

c. Defendant PANA possessed the requisite knowledge, expertise and experience to diagnose mercury poisoning; and

d. Plaintiff had osteomyelitis in tooth site #17.

103. The above representations made by Defendant PANA were false. The true facts were that:

a. Plaintiff did not have mercury poisoning;

b. Mercury poisoning could not be diagnosed without conducting scientifically accepted and approved diagnostic testing and laboratory analysis;

c. Defendant did not possess the requisite knowledge, expertise and experience to diagnose mercury poisoning; and

d. Plaintiff did not have osteomyelitis in tooth site #17.

104. Plaintiff, at the time Defendant PANA made these representations, was ignorant of the falsity of Defendant’s representations and believed them to be true. In justifiable reliance on Defendant’s representation, Plaintiff was induced to and did have performed unnecessary dental surgeries and other radical and invasive dental treatment, all of which Plaintiff would not have agreed to had she known the actual facts.

105. As a proximate result of the wrongful conduct of Defendants, Plaintiff was induced to undergo unwarranted and unnecessary dental treatment.

106. As a further proximate result of the misrepresentations made by Defendants, 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.

107. As a further proximate result of the misrepresentations made by Defendants, 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.

108. As a further proximate result of the misrepresentations made by Defendants, 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.

109. As a further proximate result of the misrepresentations made by Defendants, 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.

110. As a further proximate result of the misrepresentations made by Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff will in the future sustain loss of earnings and loss of earning capacity, 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.

EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(For Negligent Misrepresentation Against Defendants
PANA, SCMCNM and Does 16 through 20, inclusive)

111. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference all of the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 38 as though fully set forth herein.

112. On or about December 18, 19, 20, 27 and 28, 2007, during Plaintiff’s dental treatment, Defendant PANA negligently represented to Plaintiff that:

a. Plaintiff had mercury poisoning;

b. Mercury poisoning could be diagnosed by visual examination without conducting scientifically accepted and approved diagnostic testing or laboratory analysis;

c. Defendant PANA possessed the requisite knowledge, expertise and experience to diagnose mercury poisoning; and

d. Plaintiff had osteomyelitis in tooth site #17.

113. The above representations made by Defendant PANA were false. The true facts were that:

a. Plaintiff did not have mercury poisoning;

b. Mercury poisoning could not be diagnosed without conducting scientifically accepted and approved diagnostic testing or laboratory analysis;

c. Defendant PANA did not possess the requisite knowledge, expertise and experience to diagnose mercury poisoning; and

d. Plaintiff did not have osteomyelitis in tooth site #17.

114. When Defendants made these representations, they had no reasonable ground for believing them to be true as Defendant PANA had only conducted a visual examination and had not undertaken diagnostic testing or laboratory analysis to determine if Plaintiff had mercury poisoning or osteomyelitis nor did he have the requisite knowledge, expertise and/or experience to diagnose mercury poisoning or determine the presence of osteomyelitis without microscopic analysis.

115. Defendants made such material misrepresentations with the intention of inducing Plaintiff to undergo an unnecessary dental surgery and other radical and invasive dental treatment, all to Plaintiff’s detriment.

116. Plaintiff, at the time Defendants made these representations, 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 radical dental treatment, all of which Plaintiff would not have agreed to had she known the actual facts.

117. As a proximate result of the misrepresentations made by Defendants, Plaintiff was induced to undergo unwarranted and unnecessary dental treatment.

118. As a further proximate result of the misrepresentations made by Defendants, 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.

119. As a further proximate result of the misrepresentations made by Defendants, Plaintiff has sustained, and will continue to sustain, disabling, serious and permanent physical and emotional 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.

120. As a further proximate result of the misrepresentations made by Defendants, Plaintiff has incurred medical, hospital, psychological 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.

121. As a further proximate result of the misrepresentations made by Defendants, Plaintiff will in the future incur medical, hospital, psychological 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.

122. As a further proximate result of the misrepresentations made by Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff will in the future sustain loss of earnings and loss of earning capacity, 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.

NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(For Negligence Against Defendants BOUQUOT, UT
and Does 21 through 25, inclusive)

123. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference all of the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 38 as though fully set forth herein.

124. On or about December 18, 2008, by virtue of Plaintiff’s consent to Defendants PANA and SCMCNM consulting with other health care providers in furtherance of Plaintiff’s dental treatment, Plaintiff retained Defendants BOUQUOT and UT, and authorized them to act as her oral pathologists in conjunction with Plaintiff’s dental treatment with Defendants PANA.

125. On or December 18, 2007, at the time that Plaintiff sought the professional pathology services of Defendants BOUQUOT and UT, said Defendants maintained an oral pathology laboratory and biopsy service under the auspices of and as a division of the University of Texas Dental Branch at Houston and BOUQUOT held himself out to the general public as a competent and skilled oral pathologist. Plaintiff relied upon said representations of skill and competency when retaining Defendants BOUQUOT and UT to microscopically examine tissue and bone specimens from her dental surgeries, to perform biopsies and to generate biopsy reports.

126. On or about January 3, 2008, tissue and bone specimens from Plaintiff’s December 27, 2007 dental surgery were transmitted to Defendants BOUQUOT and UT by Defendant PANA for the purpose of microscopic analysis of the specimens, performance of a biopsy and generation of a biopsy report as to Defendant BOUQUOT’s findings.

127. Between January 3rd and January 10, 2008, Defendant BOUQUOT analyzed said tissue and bone specimens from Plaintiff’s December 27th dental surgeries and on January 10, 2008, generated biopsy report #UTDB2008-035 which reflected his microscopic diagnoses and findings as to the first molar area.

128. Between January 3rd and January 10, 2008, Defendant BOUQUOT analyzed said tissue and bone specimens from Plaintiff’s December 27th dental surgery and on January 10, 2008, generated biopsy report #UTDB2008-036 which reflected his microscopic diagnoses and findings as to the third molar area.

129. At all times herein mentioned wherein Defendant BOUQUOT microscopically analyzed tissue and bone specimens from Plaintiff’s dental surgeries of December 27, 2008, performed biopsies and generated biopsy reports, Defendant BOUQUOT negligently failed to exercise the proper degree of knowledge, skill and competence in examining, analyzing, and performing biopsies on tissue and bone specimens from Plaintiff’s dental surgeries and in generating biopsy reports therefrom. Defendant BOUQUOT incompetently and negligently performed pathology services, resulting in invalid and inaccurate biopsy findings.

130. As a proximate result of the misrepresentations made by Defendants, 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.

131. As a further proximate result of the misrepresentations made by Defendants, Plaintiff has sustained, and will continue to sustain, disabling, serious and permanent physical and emotional 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.

132. As a further proximate result of the misrepresentations made by Defendants, Plaintiff has incurred medical, hospital, psychological 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.

133. As a further proximate result of the misrepresentations made by Defendants, Plaintiff will in the future incur medical, hospital, psychological 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.

134. As a further proximate result of the misrepresentations made by Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff will in the future sustain loss of earnings and loss of earning capacity, 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.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff ANNE HARRISON STONE prays for judgment against Defendants, and each of them, as follows:

FOR THE FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANTS SCMCNM AND CONNEALY:

  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 future loss of earnings and loss of earning capacity according to proof;
  5. For interest thereon at the legal rate;
  6. For costs of suit incurred herein; and
  7. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

FOR THE SECOND THROUGH EIGHTH CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANTS PANA AND SCMCNM:

  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 future loss of earnings and loss of earning capacity according to proof;
  5. For interest thereon at the legal rate;
  6. For costs of suit incurred herein; and
  7. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

FOR THE NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANTS BOUQUOT AND UT:

  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 future loss of earnings and loss of earning capacity according to proof;
  5. For interest thereon at the legal rate;
  6. For costs of suit incurred herein; and
  7. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Dated: ________________________

LAW OFFICES OF DAVID J. WILZIG
A Professional Corporation

DAVID J. WILZIG (CSBN 56232)
1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1900
Los Angeles, California 90067
Tel. (310) 286-1188

Attorney for Plaintiff

This page was posted on August 15, 2009..

Links to Recommended Companies