"NICO" Practitioners Sued for Fraud

General dentists James Shen, DDS and Rily Young, DDS of Huntington, California and oral pathologist Jerry E. Bouquot, D.D.S. of Houston, Texas are facing lawsuits alleging that in 1999 and 2000 they acted negligently and conspired to defraud four patients by diagnosing nonexistent jaw problems. In each case, the plaintiff sought help for multiple symptoms, some of which (such as tooth and jaw pain) could have been related to dental problems and others of which (such as sinusitis and chest pain) that were outside of the scope of dentistry. In all four cases, Shen and Young diagnosed “cavitations,” removed jaw tissues alleged to contain them, and sent specimens to Bouquot who confirmed the alleged diagnosis.

Shen and Young are among a small number of dentists who maintain that facial pain and even pain and diseases located far from the mouth are caused by cavities (cavitations) within the jaw bones and can be cured by locating and scraping out the affected tissues. They may also remove all root-canal-treated teeth as well as other teeth close to the area where they claim the problem exists. Bouquot coined the term "NICO" in the 1980s.

There is no scientific evidence to support the diagnostic and treatment methods associated with the NICO concept. The lawsuits allege:

Here is the full text of one of the suits. Quackwatch has additional information about NICO.

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

LYNDEL McKAY,

Plaintiff,

vs.

DR. JAMES SHEN, D.D.S., DR. RILY
YOUNG, D.D.S., PACIFIC DENTAL
ESTHETICS CENTER; HEAD, NECK,
TMJ PAIN CENTER; J.E. BOUQUOT,
MAXILLOFACIAL CENTER FOR
DIAGNOSTICS & RESEARCH; and
DOES 1 through 20, inclusive,

Defendants.

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

 

Case No. 03CC15088

FIRST AMENDED
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

  1. Dental Malpractice
  2. Lack of Informed Consent
  3. Violation of Confidentiality of
    Medical Information Act
    (Civil Code Section 56 et seq.)
  4. Conspiracy to Commit Fraud
  5. Intentional Misrepresentation

 

COMES NOW Plaintiff LYNDEL McKAY and alleges as follows:

PARTIES

1. Defendants RILY YOUNG, D.D.S. (hereinafter referred to as "YOUNG") and JAMES SHEN, D.D.S. (hereinafter referred to as "SHEN") are, and at all times herein mentioned were, dentists licensed to practice dentistry by the State of California with their principal place of business located at 18751 Beach Boulevard, Huntington Beach, California 92648.

2. Defendant PACIFIC DENTAL ESTHETICS CENTER (hereinafter referred to as "PACIFIC DENTAL") is, and at all times herein mentioned was, a dental facility owned and operated by co-Defendants YOUNG and SHEN and registered to do and doing business in the State of California with its principal place of business located at 18751 Beach Boulevard, Huntington Beach, California 92648.

3. Defendant HEAD, NECK, TMJ PAIN CENTER (hereinafter referred to as "PAIN CENTER") is, and at all times herein mentioned was, a dental clinic owned and operated by co-Defendants YOUNG and SHEN and registered to do and doing business in the State of California with its principal place of business located at 18751 Beach Boulevard, Huntington Beach, California 92648.

4. Defendant J.E. BOUQUOT (hereinafter referred to as "BOUQUOT") is, and at all times herein mentioned was, a dentist operating the Head & Neck Diagnostics of America, a Division of the Maxillofacial Center for Diagnostics & Research, with its principal place of business located at 165 Scott Avenue, Suite 101, Morgantown, West Virginia 26508. Defendant BOUQUOT billed California patients directly in the State of California and conducted business with Defendants YOUNG and SHEN by performing biopsies on dental specimens in conjunction with said Defendants and sending reports of his findings to said Defendants in the State of California, thereby manifesting sufficient contact with the State of California to establish jurisdiction.

5. Defendant MAXILLOFACIAL CENTER FOR DIAGNOSTICS & RESEARCH (hereinafter referred to as "CENTER FOR DIAGNOSTICS") is a business entity with its principal place of business located at 165 Scott Avenue, Suite 101, Morgantown, West Virginia 26508 which does business with practicing dentists in the State of California by performing biopsies on dental specimens in conjunction with California dentists pertaining to California dental patients and by billing California patients directly, thereby manifesting sufficient contact with the State of California to establish jurisdiction.

6. Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate or otherwise, of defendants sued herein as DOES 1 through 20, 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.

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.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

8. On or about April 17, 2000, Plaintiff LYNDEL McKAY retained Defendants YOUNG, SHEN, PACIFIC DENTAL and PAIN CENTER to diagnose and treat her complaints of hot and cold sensitivity to all teeth, very strong gag reflex, sensitive root-canaled teeth, chronic sinusitis, stuffy nose, and nasally voice.

9. On or about April 17, 2000, at the time that Plaintiff LINDSAY sought the professional dental services of Defendants YOUNG, SHEN, PACIFIC DENTAL and PAIN CENTER, 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 California Dental Board, and Plaintiff relied upon said representations of skill and competency when retaining said Defendants to examine and treat her dental complaints.

10. On or April 17, 2000, and after examining Plaintiff and obtaining full mouth x-rays, Defendants YOUNG, SHEN, PACIFIC DENTAL and PAIN CENTER recommended that Plaintiff undergo dental surgery to alleviate her symptoms.

11. On or about April 17, 2000, at Plaintiff's initial consultation with Defendants YOUNG, SHEN, PACIFIC DENTAL and PAIN CENTER, Plaintiff further complained of cyst in her right kidney, cysts in her right breast, fungal infection in genitourinary region and GI disturbance, most of which complaints were of medical origin. However, Defendants did not refer Plaintiff to a physician for consultation and work-up relating to any or all of said symptoms nor did Defendants postpone the recommended surgeries in order that Plaintiff's additional symptoms could be medically evaluated.

12. Defendants YOUNG, SHEN, PACIFIC DENTAL and PAIN CENTER were further aware that Plaintiff was a recent cancer patient who had undergone a mastectomy of her left breast for treatment of stage 2 cancer with node involvement.

13. On or about April 18, 2000, at Defendants' recommendation and inducement, Plaintiff underwent dental surgery, resulting in the removal of teeth #12, #13, #14, #15, #18, #19, #20, and #21, together with the excision of a significant amount of the supporting bone surrounding the excised teeth and their adjacent areas.

14. On or about April 18 through April 24, 2000, Defendants YOUNG, SHEN, PACIFIC DENTAL and PAIN CENTER provided to Defendants BOUQUOT and CENTER FOR DIAGNOSTICS tissue and bone specimens from Plaintiff's April 18th dental surgery, together with radiographs and photographs taken by Defendants YOUNG, SHEN, PACIFIC DENTAL and PAIN CENTER in the course of Plaintiff's treatment, all of which were transmitted to Defendants BOUQUOT and CENTER FOR DIAGNOSTICS with information identifying Plaintiff by name, address, age, date of birth and social security number. Insurance information pertaining to Plaintiff was also transmitted to Defendants BOUQUOT and CENTER FOR DIAGNOSTICS in order to bill Plaintiff's insurance carrier for their microscopic analyses even though, Plaintiff is informed and believes, Defendants BOUQUOT and CENTER FOR DIAGNOSTICS were not licensed to do business in the State of California.

15. On or about May 8, 2000, Defendants BOUQUOT and CENTER FOR DIAGNOSTICS generated biopsy report #HN2000-1514 and amended biopsy report #HN2000-1514, which reflected microscopic diagnoses and findings as to the specimens provided from Plaintiff's April 18th dental surgery.

16. On or about May 12, 2000, Defendants BOUQUOT and CENTER FOR DIAGNOSTICS generated biopsy report #HN2000-1511 which reflected microscopic diagnoses and findings as to the specimens provided from Plaintiff's April 18th dental surgery.

17. On or about November 17, 2000, at Defendants' recommendation and inducement, Plaintiff underwent dental surgery, resulting in the removal of teeth #1, #2, #3, #4, and #5, together with the excision of a significant amount of the supporting bone surrounding the excised teeth and their adjacent areas.

18. On or about November 17 through November 27, 2000, Defendants YOUNG, SHEN, PACIFIC DENTAL and PAIN CENTER provided to Defendants BOUQUOT and CENTER FOR DIAGNOSTICS tissue and bone specimens from Plaintiff's November 17th dental surgery, together with radiographs and photographs taken by Defendants YOUNG, SHEN, PACIFIC DENTAL and PAIN CENTER in the course of Plaintiff's treatment, all of which were transmitted to Defendants BOUQUOT and CENTER FOR DIAGNOSTICS with information identifying Plaintiff by name, address, age, date of birth and social security number. Insurance information pertaining to Plaintiff was also transmitted to Defendants BOUQUOT and CENTER FOR DIAGNOSTICS in order to bill Plaintiff's insurance carrier for their microscopic analyses even though, Plaintiff is informed and believes, Defendants BOUQUOT and CENTER FOR DIAGNOSTICS were not licensed to do business in the State of California.

19. On or about December 1, 2000, Defendants BOUQUOT and CENTER FOR DIAGNOSTICS generated biopsy report #HN2000-4138 which reflected microscopic diagnoses and findings.

20. On or about November 29, 2000, after further consultations with Defendants, and at Defendants' recommendation and inducement, Plaintiff underwent dental surgery resulting in the removal of teeth #28, #29, #30, #31, and #32 and the excision of a significant amount of the supporting bone surrounding the excised tooth and the area surrounding tooth #32.

21. On or about November 29 through December 4, 2000, Defendants YOUNG, SHEN, PACIFIC DENTAL and PAIN CENTER provided to Defendants BOUQUOT and CENTER FOR DIAGNOSTICS tissue and bone specimens from Plaintiff's November 29th dental surgery, together with radiographs and photographs taken by Defendants YOUNG, SHEN, PACIFIC DENTAL and PAIN CENTER in the course of Plaintiff's treatment, all of which were transmitted to Defendants BOUQUOT and CENTER FOR DIAGNOSTICS with information identifying Plaintiff by name, address, age, date of birth and social security number. Insurance information pertaining to Plaintiff was also transmitted to Defendants BOUQUOT and CENTER FOR DIAGNOSTICS in order to bill Plaintiff's insurance carrier for their microscopic analyses even though, Plaintiff is informed and believes, Defendants BOUQUOT and CENTER FOR DIAGNOSTICS were not licensed to do business in the State of California.

22. On or about December 11, 2000, Defendants BOUQUOT and CENTER FOR DIAGNOSTICS generated biopsy report #HN2000-4215 which reflected microscopic diagnoses and findings as to the posterior right mandible.

23. Thereafter, from April 19 through December 1, 2000, Plaintiff received post-operative care and treatment from Defendants, including but not limited to, IV immune therapyon at least nine separate occasions.

24. During the term of Plaintiff's treatment with Defendants YOUNG, SHEN, PACIFIC DENTAL and PAIN CENTER and subsequent to the dental surgeries recommended by said Defendants to alleviate Plaintiff's prior complaints, Plaintiff continued to have complaints, including but not limited to, difficulty eating, pain in wearing dentures precipitated by tooth loss and embarrassment over her unsightly and disfigured appearance.

25. During the term of Plaintiff's treatment with Defendants YOUNG, SHEN, PACIFIC DENTAL and PAIN CENTER, Plaintiff was advised by Defendants YOUNG, SHEN, PACIFIC DENTAL and PAIN CENTER that any residual complaints she experienced were a normal response to her dental treatment and were not a cause for concern.

26. On or about November 6, 2003, and pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 364, Plaintiff caused a Notice of Intent to Sue letter to be mailed by certified mail to Defendants YOUNG and SHEN at their principal place of business located at 18751 Beach Boulevard, Huntington Beach, California 92648. A true and correct copy of said letter is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by reference.

27. On or about November 6, 2003, and pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 364, Plaintiff caused a Notice of Intent to Sue letter to be mailed by certified mail to Defendants BOUQUOT and CENTER FOR DIAGNOSTICS at their principal place of business located at 165 Scott Avenue, Suite 101, Morgantown, West Virginia 26508. A true and correct copy of said letter is attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and incorporated herein by reference.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

(For Dental Malpractice Against Defendants YOUNG, SHEN,
PACIFIC DENTAL, PAIN CENTER and DOES 1 through 5, inclusive)

28. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference all of the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 27 as though fully set forth.

29. Pursuant to Plaintiff's retention of Defendants YOUNG, SHEN, PACIFIC DENTAL, PAIN CENTER and Does 1 through 5, inclusive, to diagnose and treat her complaints of hot and cold sensitivity to all teeth, very strong gag reflex, sensitive root-canaled teeth, chronic sinusitis, stuffy nose, and nasally voice, said Defendants rendered professional dental services in the diagnosis, treatment and care of Plaintiff.

30. On or about April 17, 2000, and continuing thereafter through December 1, 2000, 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 surgical services, resulting in the excessive, permanent and unnecessary loss of teeth, bone and tissue causing Plaintiff to suffer gross jaw and mouth disfigurement.

31.In or about early September 2003, Plaintiff first became aware that teeth and bone had been unnecessarily removed during Plaintiff's dental treatment with Defendants YOUNG, SHEN, PACIFIC DENTAL and PAIN CENTER which was the cause of Plaintiff's continuing complaints and would cause Plaintiff to undergo future reconstructive surgery.

32. In or about October, 2003, Plaintiff first became aware, as a result of the review of her dental records from Defendants YOUNG, SHEN, PACIFIC DENTAL and PAIN CENTER by a consulting dental expert, that the unnecessary removal of teeth, the removal of bone and the unauthorized dissemination of confidential medical information was intentionally concealed from Plaintiff by Defendants YOUNG, SHEN, PACIFIC DENTAL and PAIN CENTER.

33. As a proximate result of the negligence of Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff suffered the unnecessary loss of healthy fixed teeth and the healthy supporting bone surrounding and adjacent to the excised teeth, resulting in the necessity for reconstructive activities, including surgery, augmentation and installation of prosthetic appliances.

34. 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.

35. 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.

36. 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.

37. 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.

38. As a further and proximate result of the negligence of said Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff has sustained, and will in the future sustain, loss of earnings and loss of earning capacity, the exact amounts of which are presently unknown to Plaintiff. Plaintiff will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to set forth the full extent of her loss of earnings and loss of earning capacity when same has been ascertained.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

(For Lack of Informed Consent Against Defendants YOUNG, SHEN,
|PACIFIC DENTAL, PAIN CENTER and DOES 1 through 5, inclusive)

39. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference all of the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 27 as though fully set forth herein.

40. Pursuant to Plaintiff's retention of Defendants YOUNG, SHEN, PACIFIC DENTAL, PAIN CENTER and Does 1 through 5, inclusive, to treat her complaints of hot and cold sensitivity to all teeth, very strong gag reflex, sensitive root-canaled teeth, chronic sinusitis, stuffy nose, and nasally voice, said Defendants rendered professional dental services in the diagnosis, treatment and care of Plaintiff.

41. On or about April 17, 2000, and continuing thereafter through December 1, 2000, in purported treatment of Plaintiff's ongoing complaints, including but not limited to, surgical procedures for the removal of Plaintiff's teeth, Defendants YOUNG, SHEN, PACIFIC DENTAL, and PAIN CENTER, 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 surgical procedures and negligently failed to obtain Plaintiff's informed consent for the excision of teeth and bone in light of the undisclosed risks.

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

43. In or about early September 2003, Plaintiff first became aware that teeth and bone had been unnecessarily removed during Plaintiff's dental treatment with Defendants YOUNG, SHEN, PACIFIC DENTAL, and PAIN CENTER which was the cause of Plaintiff's continuing complaints and would cause Plaintiff to undergo future reconstructive surgery.

44. In or about October, 2003, Plaintiff first became aware, as a result of the review of her dental records with Defendants YOUNG, SHEN, PACIFIC DENTAL and PAIN CENTER by a consulting dental expert, that the unnecessary removal of teeth, the removal of bone and the unauthorized dissemination of confidential medical information was intentionally concealed from Plaintiff by Defendants YOUNG, SHEN, PACIFIC DENTAL and PAIN CENTER.

45. 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 exacerbated jaw pain and jaw and facial disfigurement, resulting in the necessity for reconstructive activities, including surgery, augmentation and installation of prosthetic appliances.

46. 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.

47. 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.

48. 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.

49. 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.

50. As a further and proximate result of the negligence of said Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff has sustained, and will in the future sustain, loss of earnings and loss of earning capacity, the exact amounts of which are presently unknown to Plaintiff. Plaintiff will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to set forth the full extent of her loss of earnings and loss of earning capacity when same are ascertained.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

(For Violation of Confidentiality of Medical Information Act
by Defendants YOUNG, SHEN, PACIFIC DENTAL, PAIN CENTER,
BOUQUOT, CENTER FOR DIAGNOSTICS and Does 6 through 10, inclusive)

51. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference all of the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 27 as though fully set forth herein.

52. Defendants YOUNG, SHEN, PACIFIC DENTAL, PAIN CENTER, BOUQUOT, CENTER FOR DIAGNOSTICS and Does 6 through 10, inclusive, are providers of health care as defined in Civil Code Section 56.05(i) who, during the course of Plaintiff's treatment, had access to personal and confidential medical information pertaining to Plaintiff.

53. In the course of Plaintiff's dental treatment with Defendants YOUNG, SHEN, PACIFIC DENTAL and PAIN CENTER, said Defendants had in their possession tissue and bone specimens from Plaintiff's multiple dental surgeries, as well as radiographs and photographs of Plaintiff's face and oral cavity.

54. On or about April 18 through April 24, 2000, Defendants YOUNG, SHEN, PACIFIC DENTAL and PAIN CENTER transmitted to Defendants BOUQUOT and CENTER FOR DIAGNOSTICS tissue and bone specimens from Plaintiff's April 18th dental surgery for microscopic analysis as authorized by Plaintiff pursuant to her undated written authorization purportedly obtained prior to surgery. At the same time, Defendants YOUNG, SHEN, PACIFIC DENTAL and CENTER FOR DIAGNOSTICS willfully and wrongfully transmitted to Defendants BOUQUOT and CENTER FOR DIAGNOSTICS radiographs and photographs of Plaintiff's face and oral cavity, dissemination of which identified Plaintiff and was made without her written authorization. Said radiographs and photographs of Plaintiff's face and oral cavity were not necessary for the diagnosis and/or treatment of Plaintiff's dental complaints and were not utilized by Defendants BOUQUOT and CENTER FOR DIAGNOSTICS for the purpose of conducting microscopic analyses.

55. On or about November 17 through November 27, 2000, Defendants YOUNG, SHEN, PACIFIC DENTAL and PAIN CENTER transmitted to Defendants BOUQUOT and CENTER FOR DIAGNOSTICS tissue and bone specimens from Plaintiff's November 17th dental surgery for microscopic analysis as authorized by Plaintiff pursuant to her undated written authorization purportedly obtained prior to surgery. At the same time, Defendants YOUNG, SHEN, PACIFIC DENTAL and CENTER FOR DIAGNOSTICS willfully and wrongfully transmitted to Defendants BOUQUOT and CENTER FOR DIAGNOSTICS radiographs and photographs of Plaintiff's face and oral cavity, dissemination of which identified Plaintiff and was made without her written authorization. Said radiographs and photographs of Plaintiff's face and oral cavity were not necessary for the diagnosis and/or treatment of Plaintiff's dental complaints and were not utilized by Defendants BOUQUOT and CENTER FOR DIAGNOSTICS for the purpose of conducting microscopic analyses.

56. On or about November 29 through December 4, 2000, Defendants YOUNG, SHEN, PACIFIC DENTAL and PAIN CENTER transmitted to Defendants BOUQUOT and CENTER FOR DIAGNOSTICS tissue and bone specimens from Plaintiff's November 29th dental surgery for microscopic analysis as authorized by Plaintiff pursuant to her undated written authorization purportedly obtained prior to surgery. At the same time, Defendants YOUNG, SHEN, PACIFIC DENTAL and CENTER FOR DIAGNOSTICS willfully and wrongfully transmitted to Defendants BOUQUOT and CENTER FOR DIAGNOSTICS radiographs and photographs of Plaintiff's face and oral cavity, dissemination of which identified Plaintiff and was made without her written authorization. Said radiographs and photographs of Plaintiff's face and oral cavity were not necessary for the diagnosis and/or treatment of Plaintiff's dental complaints and were not utilized by Defendants BOUQUOT and CENTER FOR DIAGNOSTICS for the purpose of conducting microscopic analyses.

57. Thereafter, Plaintiff is informed and believes, Defendants BOUQUOT and CENTER FOR DIAGNOSTICS willfully and wrongfully further disseminated Plaintiff's confidential medical information without her knowledge nor her written authorization by using said information in research studies which were published on the Internet and elsewhere and by using said information for teaching purposes and as teaching tools.

58. In or about October, 2003, Plaintiff became aware for the first time that Defendants YOUNG, SHEN, PACIFIC DENTAL, PAIN CENTER, BOUQUOT and CENTER FOR DIAGNOSTICS had disseminated Plaintiff's confidential medical information without her knowledge nor her specific written authorization and that such action was in violation of Plaintiff's privacy rights.

59. As a proximate result of the unauthorized disclosure of Plaintiff's confidential medical information, first by Defendants YOUNG, SHEN, PACIFIC DENTAL and PAIN CENTER and, thereafter, by the republication of said confidential medical information by Defendants BOUQUOT and CENTER FOR DIAGNOSTICS, 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 unauthorized disclosure of Plaintiff's confidential medical information, first by Defendants YOUNG, SHEN, PACIFIC DENTAL and PAIN CENTER and, thereafter, by the republication of said confidential information by Defendants BOUQUOT and CENTER FOR DIAGNOSTICS, 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.

61. As a further proximate result of the unauthorized disclosure of Plaintiff's confidential medical information, first by Defendants YOUNG, SHEN, PACIFIC DENTAL and PAIN CENTER and, thereafter, by the republication of said confidential information by Defendants BOUQUOT and CENTER FOR DIAGNOSTICS, 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.

62. As a further proximate result of the unauthorized disclosure of Plaintiff's confidential medical information, first by Defendants YOUNG, SHEN, PACIFIC DENTAL and PAIN CENTER and, thereafter, by the republication of said confidential information by Defendants BOUQUOT and CENTER FOR DIAGNOSTICS, 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.

63. As a further proximate result of the unauthorized disclosure of Plaintiff's confidential medical information, first by Defendants YOUNG, SHEN, PACIFIC DENTAL and PAIN CENTER and, thereafter, by the republication of said confidential information by Defendants BOUQUOT and CENTER FOR DIAGNOSTICS, Plaintiff has sustained, and will in the future sustain, loss of earnings and loss of earning capacity, the exact amounts of which are presently unknown to Plaintiff. Plaintiff will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to set forth the full amount of damage sustained as a result thereof when ascertained.

64. The aforementioned conduct of Defendants YOUNG, SHEN, PACIFIC DENTAL, PAIN CENTER, BOUQUOT, CENTER FOR DIAGNOSTICS and Does 6 through 10, inclusive, was willful, intentional and malicious and, pursuant to Civil Code Section 56.35, entitles Plaintiff to an award attorney's fees not to exceed $1,000 and reimbursement of the costs of litigation.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(For Conspiracy To Commit Fraud Against Defendants YOUNG, SHEN,
BOUQUOT, and Does 11 through 15, inclusive)

65. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference all of the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 27 as though fully set forth herein.

66. Plaintiff is informed and believes and, thereon alleges, that at times presently unknown to Plaintiff, Defendants, YOUNG, SHEN, BOUQUOT and Does 11 through 15, inclusive, knowingly and wilfully conspired and agreed among themselves to perpetrate a fraud on the dental patients of Defendants YOUNG and SHEN in order to justify past and additional unwarranted dental treatment and to induce the dental patients of YOUNG and SHEN to agree to said treatment for their own enrichment.

67. Pursuant to said conspiracy, and in furtherance thereof, Defendants YOUNG, SHEN, BOUQUOT and Does 11 through 15, inclusive, falsely and fraudulently represented to Plaintiff that:

a. Bone and tissue specimens from Plaintiff's dental surgery on April 18, 2000, her dental surgery on November 17, 2000 and her dental surgery on November 29, 2000, would be transmitted by Defendants YOUNG and SHEN and would be used by Defendant BOUQUOT for the purpose of obtaining microscopically valid and accurate biopsy results;

b. Bone and tissue specimens from Plaintiff's dental surgery on April 18, 2000, her dental surgery on November 17, 2000 and her dental surgery on November 29, 2000, would be transmitted by Defendants YOUNG and SHEN and would be used by Defendant BOUQUOT for the purpose of performing microscopically accurate biopsy results;

c. Bone and tissue specimens from Plaintiff's dental surgery on April 18, 2000, her dental surgery on November 17, 2000 and her dental surgery on November 29, 2000, would be transmitted by Defendants YOUNG and SHEN and would be used by Defendant BOUQUOT for the sole purpose of performing valid and accurate microscopic analyses;

d. No medical information or materials other than bone and tissue specimens necessary for the performance of microscopic analyses would be provided by Defendants YOUNG and SHEN to Defendant BOUQUOT;

e. Any medical information and/or materials supplied to Defendant BOUQUOT by Defendants YOUNG and SHEN would be used exclusively for the performance of microscopic analyses, the results of which would be supplied only to Defendant surgeons and to Plaintiffs;

f. The written authorizations signed by Plaintiff limited dissemination of medical information and materials pertaining to Plaintiff solely to information and materials necessary to perform microscopic analyses.

68. Defendants YOUNG, SHEN, BOUQUOT and Does 11 through 15, inclusive, demonstrated their agreement to perpetrate a fraud on Plaintiff, by virtue of the fact that they knew that the representations made by them were false and that the true facts were:

a. Bone and tissue specimens from Plaintiff's dental surgery on April 18, 2000, her dental surgery on November 17, 2000 and her dental surgery on November 29, 2000, were transmitted by Defendants YOUNG and SHEN and used by Defendant BOUQUOT for the purpose of obtaining biopsy results which were not supported by evidence and/or science, but which validated the bogus diagnoses of Defendants YOUNG and SHEN;

b. Bone and tissue specimens from Plaintiff's dental surgery on April 18, 2000, her dental surgery on November 17, 2000 and her dental surgery on November 29, 2000, were provided by Defendants YOUNG and SHEN and utilized by Defendant BOUQUOT for the purpose of producing consistently fraudulent, inaccurate and/or misleading microscopic findings and results;

c. Bone and tissue specimens from Plaintiff's dental surgery on April 18, 2000, her dental surgery on November 17, 2000 and her dental surgery on November 29, 2000, were utilized not only for microscopic analyses, but were utilized by Defendant BOUQUOT for research studies, research projects and as teaching materials and tools, with the full knowledge of Defendants YOUNG and SHEN, but without Plaintiff's knowledge and/or consent.

d. Photographs and radiographs of Plaintiff's face and oral cavity which were transmitted by Defendants YOUNG and SHEN and which were received and utilized by Defendant BOUQUOT were not necessary for the performance of microscopic analyses.

e. Bone specimens, tissue specimens, photographs and radiographs pertaining to Plaintiff were utilized by Defendant BOUQUOT, with the full knowledge of Defendants YOUNG and SHEN, for research studies, research projects and as teaching materials and tools;

f. Medical information and materials pertaining to Plaintiff were disseminated and utilized by Defendants YOUNG, SHEN and BOUQUOT for purposes not covered by the limited written authorizations signed by Plaintiff on or about April 18, 2000, November 17, 2000, and November 29, 2000 in violation of the limited authority given by Plaintiff.

69. When Defendants YOUNG, SHEN, BOUQUOT and Does 11 through 15, inclusive, made these representations, they knew them to be false. Defendants made such material misrepresentations with an intent to deceive Plaintiff and with the intent and reasonable expectation of inducing Plaintiff to rely upon these representations, all to Plaintiff's detriment.

70. Plaintiff, at the time these representations were made by Defendants YOUNG, SHEN, BOUQUOT and Does 11 through 15, inclusive, and at the time Plaintiff took the actions herein alleged, was ignorant of the falsity of Defendants' representations and believed them to be true. In justifiable reliance on these representations, Plaintiff was induced to and did have performed unnecessary dental surgeries and other dental work and was coerced to and did sign authorizations for limited dissemination of medical information and materials, all of which she would not have agreed to had Plaintiff known the actual facts.

71. In or about October, 2003, Plaintiff became aware for the first time that Defendants YOUNG, SHEN and BOUQUOT had entered into a conspiracy to defraud her as described herein.

72. As a proximate result of the wrongful acts perpetrated by Defendants YOUNG, SHEN, BOUQUOT and Does 11 through 15, inclusive, Plaintiff was induced to undergo unwarranted and unnecessary dental treatment which would not have been justified by accurate microscopic findings and results.

73. As a further proximate result of the wrongful acts perpetrated by Defendants YOUNG, SHEN, BOUQUOT and Does 11 through 15, inclusive, 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.

74. As a further proximate result of the wrongful acts perpetrated by Defendants YOUNG, SHEN, BOUQUOT and Does 11 through 15, inclusive, 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.

75. As a further proximate result of the wrongful acts perpetrated by Defendants YOUNG, SHEN, BOUQUOT and Does 11 through 15, inclusive, 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.

76. As a further proximate result of the wrongful acts perpetrated by Defendants YOUNG, SHEN, BOUQUOT and Does 11 through 15, inclusive, 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.

77. As a further proximate result of the wrongful acts perpetrated by Defendants YOUNG, SHEN, BOUQUOT and Does 11 through 15, inclusive, Plaintiff has sustained, and will in the future sustain, loss of earnings and loss of earning capacity, the exact amounts of which are presently unknown to Plaintiff. Plaintiff will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to set forth the full amount of damage sustained as a result thereof when ascertained.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(For Intentional Misrepresentation Against Defendants YOUNG, SHEN,
|PACIFIC DENTAL, PAIN CENTER, and Does 14 through 17, inclusive)

78. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference all of the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 27 as though fully set forth herein.

79. On or about April 18, 2000, on or about November 17, 2000 and on or about November 29, 2000, during Plaintiff's dental treatment with Defendants YOUNG, SHEN, PACIFIC DENTAL, PAIN CENTER, and Does 14 through 17, inclusive, at their dental office, Defendants YOUNG and SHEN falsely and fraudulently represented to Plaintiff that:

a. Bone and tissue specimens from her dental surgeries on April 18, 2000, November 17, 2000 and November 29, 2000, would be transmitted by Defendants YOUNG, SHEN, PACIFIC DENTAL and PAIN CENTER to Defendants BOUQUOT and CENTER FOR DIAGNOSTICS for the purpose of obtaining microscopically accurate biopsy results;

b. Bone and tissue specimens from her dental surgeries would be utilized by Defendants BOUQUOT and CENTER FOR DIAGNOSTICS for the purpose of performing microscopically accurate biopsy results;

c. Bone and tissue specimens from her dental surgeries would be transmitted to Defendants BOUQUOT and CENTER FOR DIAGNOSTICS for the sole purpose of performing valid and accurate microscopic analyses;

d. No medical information or materials other than bone and tissue specimens necessary for the performance of microscopic analyses would be provided to Defendants BOUQUOT and CENTER FOR DIAGNOSTICS;

e. Any medical information or materials supplied to Defendants BOUQUOT and CENTER FOR DIAGNOSTICS by Defendants YOUNG, SHEN, PACIFIC DENTAL and PAIN CENTER would be used exclusively for the performance of microscopic analyses, the results of which would be supplied only to Defendants and Plaintiff;

f. The written authorizations signed by Plaintiff preceding her three dental surgeries would limit dissemination of medical information and materials pertaining to Plaintiff solely to information and materials necessary to perform microscopic analyses.

80. The above representations made by Defendants YOUNG, SHEN, PACIFIC DENTAL, PAIN CENTER, and Does 14 through 17, inclusive, were false. The true facts were:

a. Bone and tissue specimens from Plaintiff's dental surgeries were transmitted by Defendants YOUNG, SHEN, PACIFIC DENTAL, and PAIN CENTER to Defendants BOUQUOT and CENTER FOR DIAGNOSTICS for the purpose of obtaining results to validate the bogus diagnoses of Defendants YOUNG, SHEN, PACIFIC DENTAL and PAIN CENTER;

b. Bone and tissue specimens from Plaintiff's dental surgeries which were provided to Defendants BOUQUOT and CENTER FOR DIAGNOSTICS by Defendants YOUNG, SHEN, PACIFIC DENTAL and PAIN CENTER were utilized by Defendants BOUQUOT and CENTER FOR DIAGNOSTICS for the purpose of producing consistently fraudulent, inaccurate and/or misleading microscopic findings and results;

c. Bone and tissue specimens were utilized by Defendants BOUQUOT and CENTER FOR DIAGNOSTICS for research studies, research projects, and as teaching materials and tools with the full knowledge of Defendans YOUNG, SHEN, PACIFIC DENTAL and PAIN CENTER, but without Plaintiff's knowledge and/or consent;

d. Photographs and radiographs of Plaintiff's face and oral cavity were transmitted by Defendants YOUNG, SHEN, PACIFIC DENTAL and PAIN CENTER to Defendants BOUQUOT and CENTER FOR DIAGNOSTICS which were not necessary for the performance of microscopic analyses and were in direct violation of the limited authorization Plaintiff gave for release of medical information and materials;

e. Bone specimens, tissue specimens, photographs and radiographs pertaining to Plaintiff were utilized by Defendants BOUQUOT and CENTER FOR DIAGNOSTICS, with the full knowledge of Defendants YOUNG, SHEN, PACIFIC DENTAL and PAIN CENTER, for research studies, research projects and as teaching materials and tools;

f. Defendants YOUNG, SHEN, PACIFIC DENTAL and PAIN CENTER violated the terms of the limited written authorizations signed by Plaintiff on or bout April 18, 2000, on or about November 17, 2000 and on or about November 29, 2000, by utilizing medical information and materials pertaining to Plaintiff for purposes not covered by the authorization and disseminated medical information and materials in violation of the limited authority given by Plaintiff.

81. When Defendants YOUNG, SHEN, PACIFIC DENTAL, PAIN CENTER, and Does 14 through 17, inclusive, made these representations, they knew them to be false. Defendants made such material misrepresentations with an intent to deceive Plaintiff and with the intent and reasonable expectation of inducing Plaintiff to rely upon these representations, all to Plaintiff's detriment.

82. Plaintiff, at the time these representations were made by Defendants YOUNG, SHEN, PACIFIC DENTAL, PAIN CENTER, and Does 14 through 17, inclusive, and at the time Plaintiff took the actions herein alleged, was ignorant of the falsity of Defendants' representations and believed them to be true. In justifiable reliance on these representations, Plaintiff was induced to and did have performed unnecessary dental surgeries and other dental work and was coerced to and did sign an authorization for limited dissemination of medical information and materials, all of which she would not have agreed to had Plaintiff known the actual facts.

83. In or about October, 2003, Plaintiff became aware for the first time of the intentional misrepresentations made to her by Defendants YOUNG, SHEN, PACIFIC DENTAL, and PAIN CENTER.

84. As a proximate result of the wrongful acts perpetrated by Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff was induced to undergo unwarranted and unnecessary dental treatment. Said treatment would not have been justified if Defendants had provided accurate microscopic findings and results.

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

86. As a further proximate result of the wrongful acts perpetrated by Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff has sustained, and will continue to sustain, disabling, serious and permanent physical injuries, all to Plaintiff's general damage in an amount presently unascertainable. Plaintiff will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to set forth the full amount of damage sustained as a result thereof when ascertained.

87. As a further proximate result of the wrongful acts perpetrated by Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff has incurred medical, hospital and related expenses in a sum presently unascertainable. Plaintiff will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to set forth the full amount of damage sustained as a result thereof when ascertained.

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

89. As a further proximate result of the wrongful acts perpetrated by Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff will in the future sustain, loss of earnings and loss of earning capacity, the exact amounts of which are presently unknown to Plaintiff. Plaintiff will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to set forth the full amount of damage sustained as a result thereof when ascertained.

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(For Intentional Misrepresentation Against Defendants, BOUQUOT,
CENTER FOR DIAGNOSTICS and Does 18 through 20, inclusive).

90. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference all of the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 27 as though fully set forth herein.

91. On or about April 18, 2000, on or about November 17, 2000 and on or about November 29, 2000, Plaintiff signed authorizations on the letterhead of and created by Defendants BOUQUOT, CENTER FOR DIAGNOSTICS and Does 18 through 20, inclusive, entitled "Pathology Request" which, by their language, falsely and fraudulently represented to Plaintiff that:

a. Bone and tissue specimens from Plaintiff's dental surgeries on April 18, 2000, November 17, 2000 and November 29, 2000,, would be used by Defendants BOUQUOT, CENTER FOR DIAGNOSTICS and Does 18 through 20, inclusive, for the sole purpose of performing valid and accurate microscopic analyses;

b. Any medical information and/or materials supplied to Defendants BOUQUOT and CENTER FOR DIAGNOSTICS by Defendants YOUNG, SHEN, PACIFIC DENTAL and PAIN CENTER would be used exclusively by Defendants BOUQUOT and CENTER FOR DIAGNOSTICS for the performance of microscopic analyses, the results of which would be supplied only to Defendant surgeons and to Plaintiff;

c. The written authorizations entitled "Pathology Request" signed by Plaintiff limited dissemination of medical information and materials pertaining to Plaintiff solely to information and materials necessary to perform microscopic analyses.

92. The above representations made by Defendants BOUQUOT, CENTER FOR DIAGNOSTICS and Does 18 through 20, inclusive, were false. The true facts were:

a. Bone and tissue specimens were utilized by Defendants BOUQUOT and CENTER FOR DIAGNOSTICS for research studies, research projects, and as teaching materials and tools without Plaintiff's knowledge and/or consent;

b. Bone specimens, tissue specimens, photographs and radiographs pertaining to Plaintiff were utilized by Defendants BOUQUOT and CENTER FOR DIAGNOSTICS for research studies, research projects and as teaching materials and tools;

c. Defendants BOUQUOT and CENTER FOR DIAGNOSTICS violated the terms of the limited written authorizations entitled "Pathology Request" and signed by Plaintiff on or about April 18, 2000, on or about November 17, 2000 and on or about November 27, 2000, by utilizing medical information and materials pertaining to Plaintiff for purposes not covered by the authorization and disseminated medical information and materials in violation of the limited authority given by Plaintiff.

93. When Defendants BOUQUOT, CENTER FOR DIAGNOSTICS, and Does 18 through 20, inclusive, made these representations, they knew them to be false. Defendants made such material misrepresentations with an intent to deceive Plaintiff and with the intent and reasonable expectation of inducing Plaintiff to rely upon these representations, all to Plaintiff's detriment.

94. Plaintiff, at the time these representations were made by Defendants BOUQUOT, CENTER FOR DIAGNOSTICS, and Does 18 through 20, inclusive, and at the time Plaintiff took the actions herein alleged, was ignorant of the falsity of Defendants' representations and believed them to be true. In justifiable reliance on these representations, Plaintiff was coerced to and did sign an authorization for limited dissemination of medical information and materials, all of which she would not have agreed to had Plaintiff known the actual facts.

95. On or about July 14, 2003, Plaintiff became aware for the first time of the intentional misrepresentations made to her by Defendants BOUQUOT and CENTER FOR DIAGNOSTICS.

96. As a proximate result of the wrongful acts perpetrated by Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff was induced to undergo unwarranted and unnecessary dental treatment. Said treatment would not have been justified if Defendants had provided accurate microscopic findings and results.

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

98. As a further proximate result of the wrongful acts perpetrated by Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff has sustained, and will continue to sustain, disabling, serious and permanent physical 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.

99. As a further proximate result of the wrongful acts perpetrated by Defendants, and each of them, 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.

100. As a further proximate result of the wrongful acts perpetrated by Defendants, and each of them, 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.

101. As a further proximate result of the wrongful acts perpetrated by Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff will in the future sustain, loss of earnings and loss of earning capacity, the exact amounts of which are presently unknown to Plaintiff. Plaintiff will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to set forth the full amount of damage sustained as a result thereof when ascertained.

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

FIRST CAUSE 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 loss of earnings and future loss of earnings 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.

SECOND CAUSE 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 loss of earnings and future loss of earnings 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.

THIRD CAUSE 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 loss of earnings and future loss of earnings according to proof;
  5. For interest thereon at the legal rate;
  6. For attorney's fees and costs pursuant to Civil Code Section 56.35;
  7. For costs of suit incurred herein; and
  8. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

FOURTH CAUSE 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 loss of earnings and future loss of earnings 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.

FIFTH CAUSE 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 loss of earnings and future loss of earnings 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.

SIXTH CAUSE 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 loss of earnings and future loss of earnings 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 February 2. 2005.

Links to Recommended Companies

  • Vonage: Save money on unlimited phone service. Extraordinary value. Free 30-day trial.
  • Netflix: Free 2-week trial of DVD rentals by mail; over 85,000 titles available.
  • Amazon Books: Internet's leading source of books, electronics, tools, toys, and many other consumer goods.
  • ConsumerLab.com: Evaluates the quality of dietary supplement and herbal products.
  • Healthgrades: Check your doctors' training, board certifications, and disciplinary actions.
  • OnlyMyEmail: Award-winning anti-spam services.
  • Herbal Medicine, 3rd edition. Excellent reference book, discount-priced.