superior court of california county of orange … · 14 utah 84042 is, and at all times herein...

• I DAVID J. WILZIG CCSBN 56232l

LAW OFFICES OF DAVID J. WI ZIG 2 A Professional Coq:ioration

1801 Century Park East, Suite 2200 3 Los Angeles, California 90067

Tel. (3f0) 286-1188 Fax (310) 286-2711 4 [email protected]

5 Attorney for Plaintiff

6 PAMELA McGREEVY

7

• FILED

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE

CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER

NOV 03 2010 ALAN Cl>RLSON. Clerk o1 the Court

~~

8

9

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE

10

11 PAMELA McGREEVY

12

13

14

Plaintiff,

vs.

CAVITAT MEDICAL 15 TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; ROBERT

JONES; SOUTH COAST MEDICAL 16 CENTER FOR NEW MEDICINE,

aka CENTER FOR NEW MEDICINE; 17 LEIGH ERIN CONNEALY, M.D.;

ALIREZA PANAHPOUR, D.D.S.; 18 ZYTO CORP., a Delaware

corporation and DOES 1 through 19 50, inclusive,

20

21

22

Defendants.

Case No. 30-2010-00368271

Hon. Gregory H. Lewis Department C-26

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES:

1. Negligent Hiring/Retention 2. Dental Malpractice 3. Lack of Informed Consent 4. Battery 5. Sexual Battery 6. Intentional Misrepresentation 7. Negligent Misrepresentation 8. Intentional Misrepresentation 9. Medical Negligence 10. lntentionarM1srepresentation 11. Negligent Misrepresentation 12. Unfair Competition Pursuant to

Business & Professions Code §17200

23 COMES NOW Plaintiff PAMELA McGREEVY and alleges as follows:

24 PARTIES

25 1. Defendant SOUTH COAST MEDICAL CENTER FOR NEW MEDICINE, INC.,

26 aka CENTER FOR NEW MEDICINE, a California corporation (hereinafter referred to

27 as "SCMCNM") is, and at all times herein mentioned was, a medical/dental facility

28 registered to do and doing business in the State of California with its principal place of

First Amended Complaint for Damages

• • I business located at 6 Hughes Avenue, Suite 100, Irvine, California 92618.

2 2. Defendant LEIGH ERIN CONNEALY, M.D. (hereinafter referred to as

3 "CONNEALY") is, and at all times herein mentioned was, a physician licensed to

4 practice medicine by the State of California, holding license #G57433, and the medical

5 director and co-owner of SCMCNM, with her principal place of business located at 6

6 Hughes Avenue, Suite 100, Irvine, California 92618.

7 3. Defendant ALIREZA PANAHPOUR, D.D.S. (hereinafter referred to as

8 "PANA") is, and at all times herein mentioned was, a dentist licensed to practice

9 dentistry by the State of California, holding license #41661, with his principal place of

10 business at 6 Hughes Avenue, Suite 100, Irvine, California 92618 and, at all times

11 herein mentioned, was practicing biological dentistry as an independent contractor

12 retained by the SOUTH COAST MEDICAL CENTER FOR NEW MEDICINE, INC., aka

13 CENTER FOR NEW MEDICINE. During the time of Plaintiffs dental treatment, and

14 unbeknownstto her, Defendant PANA was on probation with the DENTAL BOARD OF

15 CALIFORNIA pursuant to a Stipulated Settlement and Disciplinary Order, the content

16 of which is described herein, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "1" and

17 incorporated herein by reference.

18 4. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that, at all times herein

19 mentioned, Defendant PANA was the agent of Defendants SCMCNM and CONNEALY

20 and, in doing the acts hereinafter described, was acting in the course and within the

21 scope of his authority as agent and in the transaction of the business of said agency.

22 Defendants SCMCNM and CONNEALY are, therefore, liable to Plaintiff for the acts of

23 Defendant PANA hereinafter alleged under the doctrine of respondeat superior.

24 5. DefendantCAVITATMEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC. (hereinafter referred

25 to as "GAVIT AT") is, and at all times herein mentioned was, a Colorado corporation

26 with its current principal place of business located at 190 Prosperity, Emory, Texas

27 75440, and the manufacturer of the Cavitat device which, at all times herein

28 mentioned, is advertised and sold to dental practitioners in the State of California for 2


• • I use within the State of California, including but not limited to Defendant PANA, thereby

2 manifesting sufficient contact with the State of California to establish personal

3 jurisdiction over said Defendant.

4 6. Defendant ROBERT JONES (hereinafter referred as to "JONES") is, and at

5 all times herein mentioned was, a resident of the State of Texas who is, and was, the

6 president and chief executive officer of Defendant CAVITAT. All actions taken by

7 CAVITAT relevant to this action, including the advertisement and sale of the Cavitat

8 device to dental practitioners in the State of California for use in treating dental patients

9 in the State of California, were at the authorization and/or ratification of Defendant

10 JONES, thereby manifesting sufficient contact with the State of California to establish

11 personal jurisdiction over said Defendant.

12 7. Defendant ZYTO CORP (hereinafter referred to as "ZYTO"), a Delaware

13 corporation with its principal place of business located at 387 South 520 West, Lindon

14 Utah 84042 is, and at all times herein mentioned was, the manufacturer and distributor

15 of LSA Pro and Balance systems marketed to healthcare practitioners for their use in

16 performing Limbic Stress Assessment tests to identify "stressors" in a person's body,

17 including but not limited to bacteria, injury, allergies, lack of sleep, toxins, emotional

18 strain and traumatic events. ZYTO conducted business with California health care

19 providers, including co-Defendants, by marketing, distributing and selling to co-

20 Defendants LSA Pro and Balance systems for use in performing LSA testing on

21 California patients, including Plaintiff, thereby manifesting sufficient contact with the

22 State of California to establish jurisdiction. The LSA Pro and Balance systems are

23 medical devices which had not, at all times relevant herein, obtained approval for their

24 use as a medical device by the Federal Drug Administration.

25 8. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that, at various times

26 herein mentioned, each of the defendants was the agent, servant, representative or

27 employee of each of the remaining defendants and, in engaging in certain acts

28 hereinafter alleged, was acting within the course and scope of said agency, service, 3


• • 1 representation. or employment and materially assisted the other defendants. Plaintiff

2 is further informed and believes and thereon alleges that each of the defendants

3 ratified the acts of the remaining defendants.

4 9. Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities, whether individual,

5 corporate, associate or otherwise, of defendants sued herein as DOES 1 through 50,

6 inclusive, and therefore sues said defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff is

7 informed and believes, and upon such information and belief, alleges that each of the

8 defendants designated herein as a DOE is legally responsible in some manner for the

9 events and happenings referred to herein and caused the damages proximately

10 thereby to Plaintiff as hereinafter alleged. Plaintiff will seek leave of court to amend

11 this Complaint to show the true names and capacities of the defendants designated

12 herein as DOES when the same have been ascertained.

13 STATEMENT OF FACTS

14 10. On or about December 19, 2006, Defendant PANA entered into a Stipulated

15 Settlement and Disciplinary Order with the Dental Board of California, wherein PANA

16 agreed that the Dental Board could establish a basis for the allegations made in its

17 Accusation No. DBC 2004-72 against PANA of incompetence, gross negligence,

18 repeated acts of negligence, false, fraudulent or misleading statements. and

19 unprofessional conduct.

20 11. Pursuant to the Decision and Order of the Dental Board of California dated

21 February 22, 2007, Defendant PANA was placed on probation, effective March 22,

22 2007 through March 22, 2009, during which time Plaintiff was Defendant PANA's

23 dental patient and unaware of his probationary status.

24 12. At some time prior to Plaintiff's treatment with Defendant PANA, PANA read

25 advertisements disseminated by Defendants CAVITAT and JONES that the Cavitat

26 device was the only ultrasound imaging system forthe alveolar process and purchased

27 the Cavitat machine from Defendants CAVITAT and JONES for use in his dental

28 practice. 4


• • 13. The Cavitat device is an ultrasonic bone densitometer which does not render

2 visual images of bone itself and is cleared by the Federal Drug Administration only as

3 a Class II prescriptive device authorized under Section 51 O(k) of the FDA regulations

4 with limited utility. The device is authorized to be used only as an adjunct to

5 conventional radiographs and has not been found to be effective by the FDA for use

6 in the diagnosis or treatment of any condition or disease, however, the device was

7 used by Defendants SCMCNM, CONNEALY and PANA as a diagnostic tool to

8 diagnose infection in Plaintiff's bone, tissue and teeth.

9 14. At such time as the Cavitat device was used for diagnostic purposes in

10 Defendant PANA's treatment of Plaintiff, Defendants CAVITAT and JONES had not

11 complied with investigational device exemption (IDE) and Institutional Review Board

12 (IRB) requirements such that his use of the Cavitat device was beyond the labeling

13 imposed by the FDA and thus, violated FDA regulations regarding human

14 experimentation and constituted misbranding.

15 15. On or about February 12, 2008, Plaintiff initially consulted with Defendant

16 PANA. At the time of Plaintiff's initial examination, Defendant PANA performed a

17 dental examination, an equilibration, undertook an occlusion analysis and a complete

18 occlusal adjustment, as well as making diagnostic casts for a mandibular appliance.

19 16. Further at Plaintiffs initial appointment with Defendant PANA on February

20 12, 2008, PANA performed diagnostic screening utilizing the Cavitat machine. Based

21 on the Cavitat's findings of necrosis in three of Plaintiff's oral quadrants, Defendant

22 PANA recommended that Plaintiff undergo extensive surgery.

23 17. Further at Plaintiffs initial appointment with Defendant PANA on February

24 12, 2008, Defendant PANA, with the assistance of a staff member, conducted ART

25 (autonomic response testing), wherein he placed a block of plastic material on various

26 portions of Plaintiffs body touching below her jaw line, placed another block behind

27 Plaintiffs head, and had his assistant pull on his fingers in order to separate his middle

28 finger and his thumb so that PANA could allegedly diagnose Plaintiff's dental condition. 5


• • 1 18. Further at Plaintiff's initial appointment with Defendant PANA on February

2 12, 2008, PANA, representing to Plaintiff that he had studied neural therapy

3 techniques which would alleviate a patient's mouth and jaw complaints through

4 treatment to other parts of the body, performed neural therapy on Plaintiff,

s administering injections of procaine into scar tissue on the entire circumference of

6 Plaintiff's neck, on her entire spine, on her stomach, left wrist and on both of her

7 breasts.

8 19. On or about May 13, 2008, Defendant PANA performed multiple procedures

9 on several of Plaintiff's teeth:

10 Tooth 1: Surgical sequestrectomy for osteomyelitis with a bone-replacement

11 graft;

12 Tooth 3: Repair of hard and soft tissue with biologic material;


14 graft;

15 Tooth 31: Repair of hard and soft tissue with biologic material;


17 graft.

18 20. Between April 2008 and October 2008, at twice-monthly appointments

19 recommended by Defendant PANA for Plaintiff's dental health, Defendant PANA

20 performed neural therapy on Plaintiff, administering injections of a substance alleged

21 to be procaine into scar tissue on the entire circumference of Plaintiff's neck, on her

22 entire spine, on her stomach, left wrist and on both of her breasts. At some, but not

23 all of Plaintiff's twice-monthly appointments, Defendant PANA adjusted Plaintiff's

24 mandibular night guard.

25 21. On or about June 18, 2008, while a patient in SCMCNM's medical division,

26 Defendant CONNEALY recommended and performed LSA testing on Plaintiff utilizing

27 ZYTO equipment, and specifically the ZYTO cradle and ZYTO proprietary software, to

28 identify "stressors" in Plaintiff's body, including but not limited to bacteria, injury, 6


• • 1 allergies, lack of sleep, toxins, emotional strain and traumatic events.

2 22. On or about April 30, 2010, and pursuant to California Code of Civil

3 Procedure, Section 364, Plaintiff caused Notice of Intent to Sue letters to be mailed by

4 certified mail to Defendant PANA at his place of business registered with the Dental

5 Board of California and located at 2701 Ocean Park Boulevard, Suite 108, Santa

6 Monica, California 90405. A true and correct copy of said letter is attached hereto as

7 Exhibit "2" and incorporated herein by reference.

8 23. On or about April 30, 2010, and pursuant to California Code of Civil

9 Procedure, Section 364, Plaintiff caused a Notice of Intent to Sue letter to be mailed

10 by certified mail to Defendant SCMCNM at its principal place of business located at 6

11 Hughes, Suite 100, Irvine, California 92618. A true and correct copy of said letter is

12 attached hereto as Exhibit "2" and incorporated herein by reference.

13 24. On or about September 7, 2010, and pursuant to California Code of Civil

14 Procedure, Section 364, Plaintiff caused a Notice of Intent to Sue letter to be mailed

15 by certified mail to Defendant LEIGH ERIN CONNEALY, M.D. at her principal place

16 of business located at 6 Hughes Avenue, Suite 100, Irvine, California 92618. A true

17 and correct copy of said letter is attached hereto as Exhibit "3" and incorporated herein

18 by reference.

19 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

20 (For Negligent Hiring/Retention Against Defendants

21 SCMCNM, CONNEALY and Does 1 through 5)

22 25. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference all of the allegations

23 set forth in paragraphs 1 through 24 as though fully set forth herein.

24 26. On or about March 18, 2005, the DENTAL BOARD OF CALIFORNIA

25 brought an ACCUSATION against Defendant PANA, under various and assumed

26 names, for several acts of misconduct in the performance of professional dental

27 services, including incompetence, gross negligence, repeated acts of negligence,

28 false, fraudulent and misleading statements, obtaining fees by misrepresentation and 7


• • 1 unprofessional conduct.

2 27. On or about December 19, 2006, Defendant PANA entered into a Stipulated

3 Settlement and Disciplinary Order with the DENTAL BOARD OF CALIFORNIA,

4 wherein PANA agreed that the Dental Board could establish a basis forthe allegations

5 made in its Accusation No. DBC 2004-72 against PANA of incompetence, gross

6 negligence, repeated acts of negligence, false, fraudulent or misleading statements,

7 and unprofessional conduct.

8 28. Pursuant to the Decision and Order of the DENTAL BOARD OF

9 CALIFORNIA dated February 22, 2007, Defendant PANA was placed on probation,

10 effective March 22, 2007 through March 22, 2009.

11 29. At all times herein mentioned, Defendants SCMCNM and CONNEALY had

12 a duty to the patients of SCMCNM, including Plaintiff, to hire and retain competent,

13 experienced and qualified professional staff, including the dentists who worked under

14 the auspices of SCMCNM.

15 30. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants

16 SCMCNM and CONNEALY knew, or in the exercise of reasonable diligence, including

17 but not limited to investigation of Defendant PANA's licensure status, should have

18 known that PANA was unfit and incompetent to perform the duties for which he was

19 hired and/or retained, namely professional dental services, and that an undue risk to

20 patients, including Plaintiff, would exist as a result of PANA's hiring and/or retention.

21 31. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants

22 SCMCNM and CONNEALY knew, or in the exercise of reasonable diligence, including

23 investigation into PANA's prior litigation history, should have known that, in multiple

24 lawsuits, allegations of Medicare fraud, sexual battery in touching intimate parts of

25 female patients' bodies and other acts of unprofessional conduct had been made

26 against PANA to some of which PANA had asserted his 5th Amendment right against

27 self-incrimination and, based thereon, PANA was unfit and incompetentto perform the

28 duties for which he was hired and/or retained, namely professional dental services, and

8


• • that an undue risk to patients, including Plaintiff, would exist as a result of PANA's

2 hiring and/or retention.

3 32. Despite this advance knowledge, Defendants SCMCNM and CONNEALY

4 breached their duty of care to the patients of SCMCNM, including Plaintiff, by hiring

5 and/or retaining Defendant PANA as an employee and/or independent contractor

6 performing professional dental services, as such employment and/or retention was in

7 conscious disregard of the rights and safety of SCMCNM's patients, including Plaintiff,

8 as PANA had been disciplined and placed on probation by the DENTAL BOARD OF

9 CALIFORNIA for gross incompetence and repeated acts of negligence in the

10 performance of professional dental services.

11 33. As a proximate result of the wrongful conduct of Defendants SC MC NM and

12 CONNEALY, Plaintiff was induced to undergo unwarranted and unnecessary dental

13 treatment by Defendant PANA.

14 34. As a further proximate result of the wrongful conduct of Defendants

15 SCMCNM and CONNEALY, Plaintiff has sustained injury to her health, strength and

16 activity, all of which injuries have caused, and continue to cause, Plaintiff great mental,

17 physical and nervous pain and suffering. Plaintiff will seek leave of Court to amend

18 this complaint to set forth the full amount of damage sustained as a result thereof when

19 ascertained.


21 SCMCNM and CONNEALY, Plaintiff has sustained, and will continue to sustain,

22 disabling, serious and permanent physical and emotional injuries, all to Plaintiff's

23 general damage in an amount presently unascertainable. Plaintiff will seek leave of

24 Court to amend this complaint to set forth the full amount of damage sustained as a

25 result thereof when ascertained.


27 SCMCNM and CONNEALY, Plaintiff has incurred medical, hospital, psychological and

28 related expenses in a sum presently unascertainable. Plaintiff will seek leave of Court 9


• • to amend this complaint to set forth the full amount of damage sustained as a result

2 thereof when ascertained.


4 SCMCNM and CONNEALY, Plaintiff will in the future incur medical, hospital,

5 psychological and related expenses, the exact nature and extent of which are currently

6 unknown to Plaintiff. Plaintiff will seek leave of Court to amend this complaint to set

7 forth the full amount of damage sustained as a result thereof when ascertained.


9 SCMCNM and CONNEALY, and each of them, Plaintiff will in the future sustain loss

10 of earnings and loss of earning capacity, the exact nature and extent of which are

11 currently unknown to Plaintiff. Plaintiff will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint

12 to set forth the full amount of damage when ascertained.

13 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

14

15

(For Dental Malpractice Against Defendants

PANA, SCMCNM and Does 6 through 10, inclusive)


17 set forth in paragraphs 1 through 24 as though fully set forth.

18 40. Pursuant to Plaintiff's retention of Defendants PANA, SCMCNM and Does

19 1 through 5, inclusive, to diagnose and treat her dental complaints, said Defendants

20 rendered professional dental services in the diagnosis, treatment and care of Plaintiff.

21 41. On or about February 21, 2008, at the time that Plaintiff sought the

22 professional services of Defendants PANA and SCMCNM, said Defendants

23 maintained their dental office and held themselves out to the general public as

24 competent and skilled dentists and dental surgeons licensed by the Dental Board of

25 California, and Plaintiff relied upon said representations of skill and competency when

26 retaining said Defendants to examine and treat her.

27 42. On or about February 12, 2008, at the time that Plaintiff sought the

28 professional services of Defendants PANA and SCMCNM, said Defendants did not 10


• • 1 inform Plaintiff that Defendant PANA was on probation with the Dental Board of

2 California.

3 43. On or about February 12, 2008, and continuing thereafter through October

4 2008, Defendants, jointly and individually, negligently failed to exercise the proper

5 degree of knowledge, skill and competence in examining, diagnosing, treating and

6 caring for Plaintiff by incompetently and negligently performing dental services,

7 resulting in unnecessary and sub-standard treatment and the unnecessary provision

8 of treatment unrelated to Plaintiff's dental complaints, all of which have caused Plaintiff

9 ongoing and residual complaints which have solely been caused by Defendants'

10 negligence.

11 44. It was not until May 4, 2009 when Plaintiff sought treatment with Richard

12 Hansen, D.D.S. and, thereafter, with other healthcare practitioners, that Plaintiff first

13 became aware that the treatment performed by Defendant PANA had caused Plaintiff's

14 continuing complaints and had necessitated remedial treatmentto rectify the treatment

15 provided to her by Defendant PANA.

16 45. As a proximate result of the negligence of Defendants, and each of them,

17 Plaintiff suffered injury to her mouth, teeth and jaw, resulting in the necessity for

18 reconstructive and restorative dental treatment.

19 46. As a further proximate result of the negligence of Defendants, and each of

20 them, Plaintiff has sustained injury to her health, strength and activity, all of which

21 injuries have caused, and continue to cause, Plaintiff great mental, physical and

22 nervous pain and suffering. Plaintiff will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint

23 to set forth the full amount of damage sustained as a result thereof when ascertained.


25 them, Plaintiff has sustained, and will continue to sustain, disabling, serious and

26 permanent physical injuries, all to Plaintiff's general damage in an amount presently

27 unascertainable. Plaintiff will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to set forth

28 the full amount of damage when ascertained. 11


• • 1 48. As a further proximate result of the negligence of Defendants, and each of

2 them, Plaintiff has incurred medical, hospital and related expenses in a sum presently


4 the full amount of damage when ascertained.


6 them, Plaintiff will in the future incur medical, hospital and related expenses, the exact

7 nature and extent of which are currently unknown to Plaintiff. Plaintiff will seek leave

8 of Court to amend this Complaint to set forth the full amount of damage when

9 ascertained.


11 them, Plaintiff will in the future sustain loss of earnings and loss of earning capacity,

12 the exact nature and extent of which are currently unknown to Plaintiff. Plaintiff will

13 seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to set forth the full amount of damage

14 when ascertained.

15

16

17

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

(For Lack of Informed Consent Against Defendants

PANA, SCMCNM and Does 6 through 10, inclusive)



20 52. Pursuant to Plaintiffs retention of Defendants PANA, SCMCNM and Does



23 53. Ono; about February 12, 2008, and continuing thereafter through October

24 2008, in purported treatment of Plaintiff's ongoing complaints, Defendants PANA and

25 SCMCNM, jointly and individually, negligently failed to disclose to Plaintiff the inherent

26 risks involved in the treatment they were rendering to Plaintiff and negligently failed to

27 obtain Plaintiffs informed consent for the procedures they performed in light of the

28 undisclosed risks.

12


• • 1 54. If Plaintiff had been adequately informed of the inherent risks associated

2 with the treatment performed by Defendant PANA, Plaintiff would not have consented

3 to said treatment.

4 55. It was not until May 4, 2009 when Plaintiff sought treatment with Richard

5 Hansen, D.D.S. and, thereafter, with other healthcare practitioners, that Plaintiff first

6 became aware that the treatment performed by Defendant PANA had caused Plaintiffs

7 continuing complaints and had necessitated remedial treatment to rectify the treatment

8 provided to her by Defendant PANA.

9 56. As a proximate result of the wrongful conduct of Defendants, and each of

10 them, in improperly and unnecessarily removing and replacing healthy crowns with

11 defective temporary crowns without Plaintiff's consent and without advising Plaintiff of

12 the inherent risks involved, Plaintiff suffered the removal of healthy tissue and bone,

13 resulting in the necessity for reconstructive and restorative procedures.

14 57. As a further proximate result of the conduct of Defendants, and each of

15 them, Plaintiff has sustained injury to her health, strength and activity, all of which

16 injuries have caused, and continue to cause, Plaintiff great mental, physical and

17 nervous pain and suffering. Plaintiff will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint









26 u nascertainable. Plaintiff will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to set forth


28 60. As a further proximate result of the conduct of Defendants, and each of 13


• • 1 them, Plaintiff will in the future incur medical, hospital and related expenses, the exact



4 ascertained.

5 61. As a further proximate result of the wrongful conduct of Defendants, and

6 each of them, Plaintiff will in the future sustain loss of earnings and loss of earning

7 capacity, the exact nature and extent of which are currently unknown to Plaintiff.

8 Plaintiff will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to set forth the full amount of

9 damage when ascertained.

10

I I

12

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(For Sexual Battery Against Defendants

PANA, SCMCNM and Does 11 through 15, Inclusive)






18 64. On a twice-monthly basis from April 2008 through October 2008 and in

19 purported treatment of Plaintiff's ongoing dental complaints, Defendant PANA

20 performed neural therapy on Plaintiff, intentionally administering (alleged) procaine

21 injections into scars on Plaintiff's breasts, an intimate part of Plaintiff's anatomy.

22 65. The neural therapy treatment which Defendant PANA performed on Plaintiff

23 was an intentional and sexually offensive contact with an intimate part of Plaintiff's

24 anatomy to which Plaintiff did not consent.

25 66. As a proximate result of the conduct of Defendants, and each of them,

26 Plaintiff has sustained injury to her health, strength and activity, all of which injuries

27 have caused, and continue to cause, Plaintiff great mental, physical and nervous pain

28 and suffering. Plaintiff will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to set forth the 14


• • 1 full amount of damage sustained as a result thereof when ascertained.














15 ascertained.

16 70. As a further proximate result of the wrongful conduct of Defendants, and





21 . FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

22

23

(For Battery Against Defendants PANA, SCMCNM

and Does 11-15, inclusive)





28 rendered professional dental services in the diagnosis, treatment and care of Plaintiff. 15


• • I 73. On a twice-monthly basis from April 2008 through October 2008 and in

2 purported treatment of Plaintiff's ongoing dental complaints, Defendant PANA

3 performed neural therapy on Plaintiff, intentionally administering procaine injections

4 into scars on Plaintiff's breasts, her stomach, entire spine and wrists, treatment to

5 which Plaintiff did not consent.

6 74. The neural therapy treatment performed by Defendant PANA on Plaintiff's

7 body below her neck was offensive and beyond the scope of Defendant's knowledge,

8 skill and experience and outside the scope of dental practices and procedures in the

9 community.

10 75. As a proximate result of the conduct of Defendants, and each of them,



13 and suffering. Plaintiff will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to set forth the

14 full amount of damage sustained as a result thereof when ascertained.














28 ascertained. 16


• • 1 79. As a further proximate result of the wrongful conduct of Defendants, and





SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION 6

7

8

(For Intentional Misrepresentation Against Defendants




11 81. On or about February 12, 2008, during Plaintiff's dental treatment,

12 Defendant PANA falsely and fraudulently represented to Plaintiff that:

13 a. Plaintiff had necrotic tissue and bone in three of the four quandrants of her

14 mouth;

15 b. Major surgery had to be performed in order to remove the necrotic tissue and

16 bone; and

17 c. Necrosis could be diagnosed by the Cavitat machine.

18 82. The above representations made by Defendant PANA were false. The true

19 facts were that:

20 a. Plaintiff did not have necrotic tissue and bone in three of the four quandrants

21 of her mouth;

22 b. Plaintiff did not require major surgery to rectify a dental condition which she

23 did not have; and

24 c. The Cavitat machine did not have FDA approval and was not effective in

25 diagnosing necrosis or infection in bone, tissue or teeth.

26 83. Plaintiff, at the time Defendant PANA made these representations, was

27 ignorant of the falsity of Defendant's representations and believed them to be true. In

28 justifiable reliance on Defendant's representation, Plaintiff was induced to and did have 17


• • I performed unnecessary and invasive dental treatment, all of which Plaintiff would not

2 have agreed to had she known the actual facts.

3 84. As a proximate result of the wrongful conduct of Defendants, Plaintiff was

4 induced to undergo unwarranted and unnecessary dental treatment.

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



8 and suffering. Plaintiff will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to set forth the

· 9 full amount of damage sustained as a result thereof when ascertained.


11 Plaintiff has sustained, and will continue to sustain, disabling, serious and permanent

12 physical injuries, all to Plaintiff's general damage in an amount presently


14 the full amount of damage sustained as a result thereof when ascertained.

15 87. As a further proximate result of the misrepresentations made by

16 Defendants, Plaintiff has incurred medical, hospital and related expenses in a sum

17 presently unascertainable. Plaintiff will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint



20 Defendants, Plaintiff will in the future incur medical, hospital and related expenses, the

21 exact nature and extent of which are currently unknown to Plaintiff. Plaintiff will seek

22 leave of Court to amend this Complaint to set forth the full amount of damage

23 sustained as a result thereof when ascertained.


25 and each of them, Plaintiff will in the future sustain loss of earnings and loss of earning




18


• • SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION 1

2

3

(For Negligent Misrepresentation Against Defendants




6 91. On February 12, 2008, during Plaintiff's dental treatment, Defendant PANA

7 negligently represented to Plaintiff that:

8 a. Plaintiff had necrotic tissue and bone in three of the four quandrants of her

9 mouth;

10 b. Major surgery had to be performed in order to remove the necrotic tissue and

11 bone; and

12 c. Necrosis could be diagnosed by the Cavitat machine.

13 92. The above representations made by Defendant PANA were false. The true

14 facts were that:

15 a. Plaintiff did not have necrotic tissue and bone in three of the four quandrants

16 of her mouth;

17 b. Plaintiff did not require major surgery to rectify a dental condition which she

18 did not have; and

19 c. The Cavitat machine did not have FDA approval and was not effective in

20 diagnosing necrosis or infection in bone, tissue or teeth.

21 93. When Defendants made these representations, they had no reasonable

22 ground for believing them to be true as Defendant PANA had reached his diagnosis

23 only on reliance of the findings of the Cavitat machine testing without employing

24 radiographs or other diagnostic procedures.

25 94. Defendants made such material misrepresentations with the intention of

26 inducing Plaintiff to undergo unnecessary and invasive dental treatment, all to

27 Plaintiff's detriment.

28 95. Plaintiff, at the time Defendants made these representations, was ignorant 19


• • I of the falsity of Defendants' representations and believed them to be true. In justifiable

2 reliance on these representations, Plaintiff was induced to and did have performed

3 unnecessary dental treatment, which Plaintiff would not have agreed to had she known

4 the actual facts.

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

6 Plaintiff was induced to undergo unwarranted and unnecessary dental treatment.


8 Defendants, Plaintiff has sustained injury to her health, strength and activity, all of

9 which injuries have caused, and continue to cause, Plaintiff great mental, physical and

IO nervous pain and suffering. Plaintiff will seek leave of Court to amend this complaint



13 Defendants, Plaintiff has sustained, and will continue to sustain, disabling, serious and

14 permanent physical and emotional injuries, all to Plaintiff's general damage in an

15 amount presently unascertainable. Plaintiff will seek leave of Court to amend this

16 complaint to set forth the full amount of damage sustained as a result thereof when

17 ascertained.


19 Defendants, Plaintiff has incurred medical, hospital, psychological and related

20 expenses in a sum presently unascertainable. Plaintiff will seek leave of Court to

21 amend this complaint to set forth the full amount of damage sustained as a result



24 Defendants, Plaintiff will in the future incur medical, hospital, psychological and related

25 expenses, the exact nature and extent of which are currently unknown to Plaintiff.

26 Plaintiff will seek leave of Court to amend this complaint to set forth the full amount of

27 damage sustained as a result thereof when ascertained.

28 101. As a further proximate result of the misrepresentations made by 20


-• • 1 Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff will in the future sustain loss of earnings and

2 loss of earning capacity, the exact nature and extent of which are currently unknown

3 to Plaintiff. Plaintiff will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to set forth the full

4 amount of damage when ascertained.

5

6

7

EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(For Intentional Misrepresentation Against Defendants

CAVITAT, JONES and Does 21 through 25, Inclusive)

8 102. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference all of the

9 allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 24, as though fully set forth herein.

10 103. At Cavitat Educational Conferences, through information and advertising

11 by its President and CEO, Bob Jones, on the www.cavitat.com website controlled and

12 maintained by Defendants Cavitat and Jones and on links provided on the cavitat

13 website such as www.altcorp.com; and as marketed through Innovation Management,

14 LLC, a venture capitalist firm retained by Defendants Cavitat and Jones to market the

15 Cavitat device to the general public, including dental practitioners, Defendants

16 CAVITAT, JONES, and Does 21 through 25, inclusive, falsely and fraudulently

17 represented to the general public, including dental practitioners such as Defendant

18 PANA who were induced to, and did, purchase the Cavitat device to diagnose patients,

19 that:

20 a. That the Cavitat device imaged diseases of the alveolar bones,

21 including NICO, and was capable of assessing vascular flow;

22 b. Thatthe clinical effectiveness of the Cavitat device had been sufficiently

23 demonstrated in the evidence-based dental community;

24 c. That the Cavitat device was a reliable and effective diagnostic tool;

25 d. That the findings of a Cavitat examination would be consistent with and

26 used in conjunction with conventional radiographs;

27 e. That the Cavitat device was the subject of Institutional Review Board

28 supervised studies, the results of which were published in peer-reviewed journals; 21


2 infection;

3

• • f. That the Cavitat device was capable of, and approved for, diagnosing

g. That the Cavitat device was promoted and utilized by dental health

4 practitioners for the benefit of their patients;

5 h. That the FDA had approved Cavitat as effective in the diagnosis of

6 dental bone pathology;

7 i. That the Cavitat device had received full approval from the FDA to

8 market the device for its promoted uses, including as a stand-alone diagnostic tool;

9 j. That Cavitat complied with FDA regulations and standard practices.

10 104. The above representations made by Defendants CAVITAT, JONES, and

11 Does 21 through 25, inclusive, were false. The true facts were:

12 a. The Cavitat device tested only bone density;

13 b. The clinical effectiveness of the Cavitat device had not been sufficiently

14 demonstrated in the evidence-based dental community;

15 c. The Cavitat device was not a reliable or effective diagnostic tool;

16 d. The Cavitat device routinely detected alleged defects and cavitations

17 which were normal on a conventional radiograph;

18 e. The Cavitat device had not been the subject of appropriately controlled

19 studies with IRB approval nor had any such studies been published in peer-reviewed

20 journals;

21 f. The Cavitat device was not capable of, nor approved for, diagnosing

22 infection;

23 g. The Cavitat device was promoted and utilized by dental practitioners

24 for their own self-benefit and self-enrichment;

25 h. The FDA had expressly rejected the request to label and market the

26 Cavitat device as capable of diagnosing NICO or identifying any specific bone

27 pathology;

28 1. The FDA had given only limited marketing clearance to the Cavitat 22


• • device and had rejected attempts to have the Cavitat device marketed as a stand-

2 alone diagnostic tool;

3 j. Cavitat had introduced a device into interstate commerce that was

4 adulterated and/or misbranded and promoted it for FDA unapproved or uncleared

5 uses.

6 105. When Defendants CAVITAT and JONES made these representations, they

7 knew them to be false. Defendants made such material misrepresentations with an

8 intent to deceive the general public, including dental practitioners such as Defendant

9 PANA, as to the effectiveness and validity of the Cavitat device and with the intent to

10 deceive and induce members of the general public, including members of the dental

11 profession such as Defendant PANA, to rely upon these representations and to

12 purchase a Cavitat device for diagnosis of dental patient complaints for which the

13 Cavitat device was not equipped, nor approved, to perform, all to Plaintiff's detriment.

14 106. Defendant PANA, based upon the factthat he purchased, borrowed, tested

15 and/or employed the use of a Cavitat device, was ignorant of the falsity of Defendants'

16 representations at the time the representations were made by CAVITAT and JONES

17 and believed them to be true. In justifiable reliance on these representations and the

18 claimed efficacy of the results of the Cavitat device in identifying disease and infection

19 in Plaintiff's jaw and mouth as represented to Defendant PANA as inducement to

20 purchase the Cavitat device, Plaintiff underwent unnecessary, harmful and invasive

21 dental surgeries.

22

23

24

NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(For Medical Negligence Against Defendants CONNEALY,

SCMCNM and Does 26 through 30, inclusive)


26 allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 24 as though fully set forth herein.

27 108. Pursuant to Plaintiff's retention of Defendants CONNEALY, SCMCNM and

28 Does 26 through 30, inclusive, to diagnose and treat her medical complaints, said 23


......,

• • 1 Defendants rendered professional medical services in the diagnosis, treatment and

2 care of Plaintiff.

3 109. At the time that Plaintiff sought the professional services of Defendants

4 CONNEALY And SCMCNM in or about 2008 and continuing thereafter, said

5 Defendants maintained their medical office and held themselves out to the general

6 public as competent and skilled physicians licensed by the Medical Board of California,

7 and Plaintiff relied upon said representations of skill and competency when retaining

8 said Defendants to examine and treat her.

9 110. On or about June 18, 2008, Defendant CONNEALY negligently failed to

10 exercise the proper degree of knowledge, skill and competence in examining,

11 diagnosing, treating and caring for Plaintiff by incompetently and negligently performing

12 LSA testing utilizing ZYTO equipment, including but not limited to the ZYTO cradle and

13 ZYTO proprietary software, which test provided no medical benefit to Plaintiff and

14 which did not, and could not, as prescribed by Defendant CONNEALY identify

15 "stressors", including but not limited to bacteria, injury, allergies, lack of sleep, toxins,

16 emotional strain and traumatic events.

17 111. On or about June 14, 2010, Plaintiff first became aware, as a result of the

18 review of her medical records by a consulting medical expert that the LSA testing

19 undertaken by Defendants CON NEAL Yand SCMCNM provided her no medical benefit

20 and that the purported results of the LSA testing was used solely by Defendants

21 SCMCNM and CONNEALY as a means to sell Plaintiff expensive supplements and to

22 prescribe clinical therapies for the unjust enrichment of Defendants.

23 112. As a proximate result of the negligence of Defendants, and each of them,

24 Plaintiff suffered injury as a result of the administration of unnecessary and medically

25 unwarranted LSA testing which Defendants relied upon in prescribing medically

26 unnecessary and expensive supplements and clinical therapies.

27 113. As a further proximate result of the negligence of Defendants, Plaintiff has

28 sustained injury to her health, strength and activity, all of which injuries have caused, 24


',

• • I and continue to cause, Plaintiff great mental, physical and nervous pain and suffering.




5 sustained, and will continue to sustain, disabling, serious and permanent physical and

6 emotional injuries, all to Plaintiff's general damage in an amount presently

7 unascertainable. Plaintiff will seek leave of Court to amend this complaint to set forth



10 incurred medical, hospital, psychological and related expenses in a sum presently

11 unascertainable. Plaintiff will seek leave of Court to amend this complaint to set forth


13 116. As a further proximate result of the negligence of Defendants, Plaintiff will

14 in the future incur medical, hospital, psychological and related expenses, the exact


16 of Court to amend this complaint to set forth the full amount of damage sustained as

17 a result thereof when ascertained.

18 117. As a further proximate result of the negligence of Defendants, and each

19 of them, Plaintiff will in the future sustain loss of earnings and loss of earning capacity,

20 the exact nature and extent of which are currently unknown to Plaintiff. Plaintiff will

21 seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to set forth the full amount of damage

22 when ascertained.

23 TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

24 (For Intentional Misrepresentation Against Defendants

25 CONNEALY, SCMCNM and Does 26 through 30, inclusive)



28 119. On or about June 18, 2008, during Plaintiff's medical treatment, Defendant 25


• • I CONNEALY falsely and fraudulently represented to Plaintiff that:

2 a. LSA testing could identify "stressors", such as bacteria, injury, allergies, lack

3 of sleep, toxins, emotional strain and traumatic events effecting Plaintiff's body;

4 b. LSA testing could identify clinical therapies and supplements which would

5 alleviate the "stressors" the LSA test results identified in Plaintiff's body;

6 c. The clinical therapies and supplements prescribed by Defendants based on

7 LSA test results would alleviate Plaintiff's "stressors".

8 120. The above representations made by Defendant CONNEALY were false.

9 The true facts were that:

10 a. LSA testing could not identify "stressors" effecting Plaintiff's body such as

11 bacteria, injury, allergies, lack of sleep, toxins, emotional strain and traumatic events.

12 b. LSA test results could not identify clinical therapies and supplements which

13 would alleviate "stressors" which LSA testing could not identify;

14 c. Clinical therapies and supplements prescribed by Defendants based on LSA

15 test results could not alleviate "stressors" which LSA testing could not identify.

16 121. Plaintiff, at the time Defendant CONNEALY made these representations,

17 was ignorant of the falsity of Defendant's representations and believed them to be true.

18 In justifiable reliance on Defendant's representation, Plaintiff was induced to and had

19 performed unnecessary and expensive medical treatment which Plaintiff would not

20 have agreed to had she known the actual facts.

21 122. As a proximate result of the misrepresentations of Defendants, and each

22 of them, Plaintiff suffered injury as a result of the administration of unnecessary and

23 medically unwarranted LSA testing which Defendants relied upon in prescribing

24 medically unnecessary and expensive supplements and clinical therapies.




28 nervous pain and suffering. Plaintiff will seek leave of Court to amend this complaint 26


• • 1 to set forth the full amount of damage sustained as a result thereof when ascertained.



4 permanent physical and emotional injuries, all to Plaintiff's general damage in an



7 ascertained.







14 Defendants, Plaintiff will in the future incur medical, hospital, psychological and related

15 expenses, the exact nature and extent of which are currently unknown to Plaintiff.




19 Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff will in the future sustain loss of earnings and




23 ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

24

25

(For Negligent Misrepresentation Against Defendants

CONNEALY, SCMCNM and Does 26 through 30, inclusive)



28 129. On or about June 18, 2008, during Plaintiff's medical treatment, Defendant 27


• • I CONNEALY negligently represented to Plaintiff that:

2 a. LSA testing could identify "stressors'', such as bacteria, injury, allergies, lack

3 of sleep, toxins, emotional strain and traumatic events effecting Plaintiff's body;

4 b. LSA testing could identify clinical therapies and supplements which would

5 alleviate the "stressors" the LSA test results identified in Plaintiff's body;

6 c. The clinical therapies and supplements prescribed by Defendants based on

7 LSA test results would alleviate Plaintiff's "stressors".

8 130. The above representations made by Defendant CONNEALY were false.

9 The true facts were that:

IO a. LSA testing could not identify "stressors" effecting Plaintiff's body such as

11 bacteria, injury, allergies, lack of sleep, toxins, emotional strain and traumatic events.

12 b. LSA test results could not identify clinical therapies and supplements which

13 would alleviate "stressors" which LSA testing could not identify;

14 c. Clinical therapies and supplements prescribed by Defendants based on LSA

15 test results could not alleviate "stressors" which LSA testing could not identify.

16 131 . When Defendant made these representations, they had no reasonable

17 ground for believing them to be true.

18 132. Defendant made such material misrepresentations with the intention of

19 inducing Plaintiff to undergo an unnecessary and expensive medical treatment, as well

20 as to induce the sale of supplements profitable to Defendants, all to Plaintiff's

21 detriment.

22 133. Plaintiff, at the time Defendant made these representations, was ignorant

23 of the falsity of Defendant's representations and believed them to be true. In justifiable

24 reliance on these representations, Plaintiff was induced to and did have performed

25 unnecessary and expensive medical treatment which Plaintiff would not have agreed

26 to had she known the actual facts.

27 134. As a proximate result of the misrepresentations of Defendants, and each

28 of them, Plaintiff suffered injury as a result of the administration of unnecessary and 28


• • • 1 medically unwarranted LSA testing which Defendants relied upon in prescribing

2 medically unnecessary and expensive supplements and clinical therapies.




6 nervous pain and suffering. Plaintiff will seek leave of Court to amend this complaint




1 o permanent physical and emotional injuries, all to Plaintiff's general damage in an



13 ascertained.







20 Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff will in the future sustain loss of earnings and




24 TWELFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

25

26

(For Unfair Competition Pursuant to B&P Code §17200

Against Defendants ZYTO and Does 31 through 35, inclusive)


28 allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 24 as though fully set forth herein. 29


'--• • I 140. In or about January 2008 through the present, Defendants ZYTO and Does

2 31 through 35, inclusive, manufactured and distributed to healthcare practitioners

3 throughout the United States, including Defendants CONNEALY and SCMCNM, LSA

4 Pro and Balance systems for the practitioners' use in performing Limbic Stress

5 Assessment testing.

6 141. In or about January 2008 through the present, Defendants ZYTO and Does

7 31 through 35, inclusive, promoted and marketed LSA testing as a revolutionary

8 means to measure and analyze "stressors" effecting a person's body, such as bacteria,

9 injury, allergies, lack of sleep, toxins, emotional strain and traumatic events, in order

10 to provide the healthcare practitioner with guidance as to what clinical therapies and

11 supplements to prescribe to a patient in order to alleviate the "stressors" which LSA

12 testing purportedly identified.

13 142. The marketing, promotion and promulgation of LSA testing as a means to

14 measure and analyze bacteria, injury, allergies, lack of sleep, toxins, emotional strain,

15 traumatic events and other medical conditions was deceptive and misleading.

16 143. The conduct of Defendant ZYTO as described herein constitutes unfair

17 competition within the meaning of Business & Professions Code §17200.

18 144. Plaintiff, by virtue of being subjected to unwarranted and unnecessary LSA

19 testing, has suffered damage in an amount presently unknown to be proven atthe time

20 of trial.

21 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff PAMELA McGREEVY prays for judgment against

22 Defendants, and each of them, as follows:

23 FOR THE FIRST AND NINTH THROUGH ELEVENTH CAUSES OF ACTION

24 AGAINST DEFENDANTS SCMCNM AND CONNEALY:

25 1. For general damages according to proof;

26 2. For medical, dental and related expenses according to proof;

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

28 4. For future loss of earnings and loss of earning capacity according to proof; 30


• • 1 5. For interest thereon at the legal rate;

2 6. For costs of suit incurred herein; and

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

4 FOR THE SECOND THROUGH SEVENTH CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST

5 DEFENDANTS PANA AND SCMCNM:


7 2. For medical and related expenses according to proof;

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

9 4. For future loss of earnings and loss of earning capacity according to proof;

10 5. For interest thereon at the legal rate;



13 FOR THE EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANTS CAVITAT

14 AND JONES:


16 2. For medical, dental and related expenses according to proof;

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

18 4. For future loss of earnings and loss of earning capacity according to proof;




22 FOR THE TWELFTH CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST ZYTO:


24 2. For special damages according to proof;




28

31


• • 1 Dated: !;Iv /0 LAWOFFI

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

32


• •

EXHIBIT

- I

····-··-:·-·· ·--"'---··-··_: ........ ~.'..:'.:::;...;_· .·~:: .... ·.:;. ... ~.;..~3r::.-!::&:.~···":l~"'.:.....:·_::::,"'"'·~· :~~··.· _. __ ...... --..... .~: .... ,,; .. ,;~.:-.-:.:...;:.._:.....:..,:,,, .. .

• • I

' . BEFoRETHE

D.ENl:.U..BO~· OF CAUFOlit.'l\ilA DEPAR~ · CQNSlIMERAFFAlRS

SJAT! , CALif'OlU'flA

In the Mam::rofthe Accusation A~si:

.>J..IREZA PA.1'1.'\HPOUR. D.D.S .. a:k.a.. ALI.REZA PANA.POUR, iNQ. a.k.a. ALEXANDER PANA, D.D:~ a.k.a. OR.ALEX PANA. D.D.S. a.bi. D.R. PANA and · a.k.a: ECLECTIC HSAL TH

Case No. DBC 2004-72

OAHNo. L-2005040427

D£cfSJQN ANU.OR;PER I i

lbc attached Stipulat¢ Settl~t and Disdplina1yOrd<lr is hereby adop!Cd by

rhe Dental Bollrd of California, Depilrtment oJJConsumer Affairs, as its ili:i:iskm in this m=r. ! ;

This Decis.i.o.n shall ~efftctive on Mar<::h 22, 2007 ! i . ' ' !tis oo ORDERED :fabtuaxiy 22, 260.7

, .. ~

• • BILL LOCKYER, Attomey G<!~

of the State ofca!ifomia ' 1 GLORIA A. B.Aruti.OS ' .

3 Supetvisill!l Dei>IH.Y At!Qmey .Gqneral !

MICHEL W. 'tf AL'EN11NE. State Bar No.15M78 Deputy Attorney 0enem : i

4 Clllifomia Ocp&rtmeni of1ust~e \ : 300 So. Sprlll& Street, Suite 1702 .

:5 Los Angeles, CA 9ooi3 Telephone: (213) 897·1i>14

6 Facsimile: (213j 897-2804

7 Attorneys for Complainan1

9

IO

11

12

13

I .f

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

Z2

23

24

15

.!6

27

28

In the Matter of the Accusation Ajllinsc:

ALIREZA PANAHPOUtt, DD.S. . 11.k.a. ALiREZA 'PANAPOUJt INCL a.k.a. Al.EXA.i'\"D'ER PANA. DD.sl a.le.a.. DR. ALEX PANA, D.D.S. ; a..k.a. Dl?.. PANA ajid· a.k.a. ECLECTIC HEAL TI:! . .

·Rcspon+. i

Case No. DBC 2004-72

OAR No. L-2005040427

STIPULATED SETTLEMENT AND MSCIPLL"fAR\' ORDF!R

. : i ITJS HEREBY STIPjL'LATIID~D AGREED by and between !lw.parries to the

. ' abovc-emitled ~ that the tPJlowing ~are !rue:

. '

I. R:iclJlird L. Wililil!iler ~:t:::11a11t) is the interim executive Qfficer of the

Denral Board of califomia. He br~ this aclion solely in bis official capacity and is ' I

represented in 1his matter by Bill L~k}ier. A~ General oflhe State of.C'.alifumia. by . ; Michel W. Valentine, Deputy Attomf!y (.;ineral.

~ \

2. RespGndent Alirez.a P~pour, D..O.S, aka Alirez.a Panapour, lnc.

aka Alexander Pana, D.D:S., aka Dr:.\Alex ran;j, D.D.S~ aka Dr. Pana and aka Eclectic Health.

htlreinafter (Respondent) who are ~ted J tbls proeecding by attorney James D. Savage. i i

Esq., whose address is OBe World Tiiadc Cenret, 27th Floor. l.0011. Beach. CA 90831-2700. : ~ , -

• • 3. On or about ~ 21, ~ 994, the DeriW Board of California issued Denial

2 License No. 41661 10 Alireza Pas:uulpout, o.J.s~ a..ka. Alexander Pma. D.D.S. The License

3 was in full force and effect at a11-n4ci; releJi to the chalgcs brought in Accu~ion No. OBC

4 2004-72 and will expire oa Juii.e 30J 2007, unless rem:wed. 1 I ! JUBI~IC'IJON l I

6 4. Accusation No •. DBC 2\>04-72 was tiled before the Dental Boord of

7 Clllifprnia (Board) , Departm\lnt oft.oasumer\Affairs, and ii< cwrem:ly pending against

8 Resp9ndent. The Accu.sai<ion and a~ other +:ly required doclltnellts were properly served

9 on Respondent on March '25, 2005. illespood+ timely filed hiS Notice of Defense c:oote.'lting the

l 0 Accusation. A copy of Accµsinion.:f o. DBC i004-72 is attaahed as E.>u'iibit A and incorp()J'a{<:tl .

ll h . . .......... I I

erem DY ie'""""ce. i l ' I

12 ADfisEMENf AN']) WAJVERS

13 5, Respondent~ careful~ read, fuUy discus.-.ed with ooun$el. aod

!4 undersrW1ds the chal:ies and al!egatirns in.Ac'f1wion No. DBC 2004-72. Respoodem has al:m I

l 5 catefully read, fully discussed witb-¢0unsel. aiJd undersmnds the effects of this Stipulated l l

16 Settlemem and Disciplinary Order. I l' 17 6. Respondent .J fully 3'<. ofllis legal righis in thi.s matter. including the

18 right to a h<:aring on th<: cliarges ~ allegattol 1n Che A~n; th;: right to be repn=rned b)

19 ~'llllnsel ai his own eii:pelise; tbe righf l.lJ oon4 and cro5$-1Jl(l!ffiine tbe wimesses against him;

20 the right to ~t evidence. mid to *5tify on hf s own behalf; thl! right to the issuance of

2.J subpoenas to compel the atteodJ!ni::e ~~ ~ the pnxluclion of documents; ihe right io

22 reconsideration and court ·review of~ adverse ~isien; and all other rights accorded by th~ 23 California Admi.'lislrati:ve Procet&urd Act and Jber applicable laws. \

7. Re&pondent v+!umarily, rowingly, and mtclligentl;,· wah•es and gives up \I 24

25 each and ever)· right seL furth abo'\'1l.'\ 1.

i ' CULPABILITY I 26

I l!. Respondllll! a4Jnits the trtnh of the Second Cause for Discipline

~s . 1· __ .. I . • I N J ~ .1. . (Ill! 1cen..,.. ne.mesiy e&J m AccussriOn o. DBu .. """"'72.

! . !

27

... ""···

-1 -- .. ·~·~.~··...;..._.;..,:· ...• .;.;:..·..:..;":""'"'4-.;..,...~-:::·. ·.:.::. . ...:......-.~--·-: --· --,..;~...:.:..:. .... . :. --~··~····

• ! • 9. Respondent~ tbal at a hearing. Cowp.lai11ant eoulrl establish a focwal

2 ba.~i~ fOr wliat is alleged in the: F~ Cause fb~ Discipline, (lncompell..'llce, Gros& Negligence and

3 Repeated Acts ofN!?jJ!igenc:e). Th~ Cause+ Dtscipfme, (False, Fraudulent or Misleading

4 Statements), Foun11 cause ror.oi5i"ine, (rnkaining·F~ 11y Mii:represcnr..ation}, and the Fift.~ ,

5 Cause for Discipliile, (Unprofessiof' Condu~). Respondent here.by gives up the right to comest I .

6 those charges. : I ;

1 . 10. Respondent r thatlnis Den1a1 Licerise is subjeet w disciplme '1lld he

& ag~ lo 'be bound by the Dental ru,,,,..i of~itbmia ~oord) 's imposiiiol! of discipline as w: ~ ~~ I .

9 forth in !he Disciplinary On:ler be!el... · lO . · 1 .w.i~'~CL.Y

I

ii J ! . This stip4n shall subject to approval by the Dentiil Board of

12 California. Res~AA"t um:lemandl arul .--i.. that co1J11Sel fur Coll!Dlainam and the staff of the !""-· i "5' 1' . 13 Dental Boanl llf Cattfumia ~ ~~fome~· wilh 1!,M; Boaro regilrding mis stipulati<1n !

! 14 and settlement, wi1heut noricc m or~ a by R~ oc bis counsel. By signing th~

I 15 stipulmion. Respondent understan~ and . ! l 6 to rescind the stipulation prior to thij dme the C!lllSiders and acts upon it lfthe Boord fuils

17 to adopt this stipul11ti.cn as its Der;iJon 8ll<l • the Stipulated Settlement and Disciplinary I ! I

18 Order sha!1 be of no force oreffect; txc::eptfurris paragraph, it :mall be inadmissible in any

l 9 legal action betwe.en me parties, J the BoardjshaU not~ disq1131ified from further action by I l

20 hlwing considered this matter. i ;

l 2. The panic~ u~ders!and ~d agree Iha! facsimile copres of this Stipul:ue-0

22 Settlement and Disciplinary Order, ~uding ~imjJe signal'ure$ thereto, shall have the same I I

23 force alld cffe..-t as the originals. i l

13. Tn con~ of the f~oing !ldmissions lllld stipulations, the pmtie.~ I !

25 agree that the Board may, without ~ natide Of fumlal proceeding, issue and eater the

21

24

26 following Disciplin&y Order; !

27 II! '

28

~----··~·"-· .. ·-·----·--·-··-'"• .

• XVKWtfABY ORDER .

2 IT tS HEREBY OR~~, Re:spondem Alireza Panahpoor. D.D.S. a.k.a.

3 Alexander Pana, D..D.S. that Dental !Lk:en$e '!Ian. 4166'! is hereby revoked. The rewcatioo will I ~·~ .

4 be stayed and ~ Respomlent p~ on two ~} years. probation on the following tenns Dlld

5 conditions. ! J

i I 6 l. Obey Al ~- Res~nl shall comply with all conditions of

7 probation and obey federal, S1a1e· aJ local la\'/'s and.all rule!; and regulations governing tile

S pracrice of dentisuy in Califom!a, 4d remain~ full ~mpllan= with any court ordered criminal

9 (1l'Obation. pa~'melltS and other ~ems. J

11> 2. Quarterly ~troJ. R~·sbnll submit quarterly declarations

l J under penalcy ofpeljury Pll the 4s ~!y Report of Compliance forms provided by !he

12 ·Board, stating wheth~r chere has beef1 compliajice with ail the oonditions of probation.

3. ProbatiOn.sJrvein.aJ. Respondel)t shall !):)mply with the Board'5 I . ·~· . 14 probation surveill.arn:e program. i '

!

15 4. ht~. 1'.e$J>Oni:len S!lsil appear in pel'SOO for inn:rvi<l'l"o with a

f6 Board representative upon request~ various i !erials and with reasooable notice.

5. Cha~ of A1dnss. R pondellt shall inform the Board in writing within

18 15 days of any change of place ofr+:uceor pbwe of residence. Rc.<;pondcnt shall at all times

19 keep the .. &ard infprmedof.bis a<ldr.~.ofbllf.i~sandresidence which sball ooth serve a~ 20 addresses of record. Under no clrcui!nsta:nces +n a, post office box serve as an address of

21 mom. i, I Ri:spoodem .shall hl, ~~ly infooil ~ BQllfd, m 11;riang, of any IJllvel to

23 any an:as outside the jW'isdil:lion of fallfomia ricl! lasts, or is C()lltemplated to las~ more lhan

22

24 thin.y (30) days. . \ i • • I 25 6. Cost Recoverf • Respot!S hereby ordered to rc!lllburse the Board the I 26 ·amount of$10,000.00 within I year \from the i'l·e date of this decision for Ifs in~-estigativ~ 27 and pTO.'le!'U!Orial costs up to rhe daui of the heahn". Failure to reimbur:ie rile Board's cost oflts

• I C

I \ 28 investigation and prt>SllCUlicn shall ~tUie a tiola!ion Qftbe probationary order. unless the

' I ! i ! ~

• • ' . '

Board OT lts Executive Oftker 3Jl:fet\5 in ~ l:O payment by 1.tn iostal lmem plan t>ecnuse of

2 financial hardship. HOWC'Ver, full +ment mjl54 be- received no later than one year prior 10 tho:

3 scheduled terminlltion of probation. [ \

4 7. Lmcnse S11qfider. FfllO'l'ing the effective date of this decisioo, if I '

5 Rdlpondent ctaseil practicillg due~ ~t, ·he3lth fea5i)nS or is otherwisll llllable to satisfy

6 me tmns and conditions of probatlt· R~cnt may volwrtarily surrender his license 10 the

7 Board. The Board roserv.:s the righ~ to cvalu* the Respondtnr' s request lltld to exercise its l I

S di;;crc1ion whech~T w grant 1he requqst. or to 'f<t any olher action deemed appropl'i:Ue and

9 reasonatile under !he ein:umstan~es.\ U'))Oll fota1 accepmnc:e of the !¢ndered lieenre.

I 0 Respoodant will II!> longer lie subje4 ID tile. and conditions of probation . .

II S. A~e froi Sb#elr. · ctjce. ln the event Respondent should lca.1>e

12 Ce.lifomia to reside or pnictir;e·oursrelht -S!a . R~i;pondein ml!SI provide wrinen notificatioo 1"

13 the Board of the dates of dc:parture 'f1 n:turn.1 Period~ of nisidence Cll' practice oul.sidc of

14 California v.·ill not ll.J!Ply to the roduttion of p(ObatiOnary period. In me eventRespondero

l 5 ceases to actively practice dentist!)' ~ Cal· · · ta, Respondent must prcrvide v.Titten notification

i6 of that~ tO tile SOIU'd. The~ when lhe · espondent is not pi:acticlng wifl not apply io the I I

17 reductmn oftbe probationary pcrio~ Ab$enc:e~: the sr.are or absence from practice shall not

18 rclieve !be R1$poodcnt from iUlfillit the con ·. s of probation requiring reimbursement of

l 9 cosis or restitution to patients or on ehalf of ~tiems. '.!O <J. Coatinuance~r&:o~o1111ry Term/Completion ofl>robation. lf

21 Respondent violatllO the tecmS oftmt probatio, ln any respect, the Board, after giving

22 ~l notice amt the opportunjiY to be heivd. may S¢1 asid~ the stay ordl!" and impose the . i

23 revocation or suspensii:lll.ofthe Resijondent's lifense. If, during1he period of probation. an , I

:?4 accusation and/or 11 petition to revo~ ~ has been filed against Respondent's license or

25 !be Attorney Gcn«al'5 Qffice has belm request!ld to ~ an accui;a1ion a11d/or a petition to

26 reV<>ke probation again$ RespondJs license. ~e probationary period shall lllllDmatically be i i

2 7 extended al)d shall no1 expire until ~e ~(jn and/or the petition to fevoke prob.at.ion has , I

28 been actetl ilp(Jll by the Board. Upoi\ successful completion of probation, Respondent'$ lice~ . ! i

v.ill be fully restorerl. I

I ~ I

• • . \ I ,

10. Remedial Eifuealion. [Within 90 day.1· of cit;; effective dak ofrhis

2 decision. Respor>Qent shall submit+ the ~ for its prior appmvaL an approprl:ne pl'Q~am uf

) remedial educatkin related ro oral diagnosis··~ treatment planning in an <:dllClll.ionai facility or ,

4 program which must also to be apPf ved by ~e Board. Tiie exact number ofhoors and specific

5 content of the program shall be dettnined tire Boan! or its designee. Respoodem shall

6 soccessfully complete the n:nredial ~on ogmm within !he first year of probation lllld may

7 be required ta pass an examination <fdinioi bythl:: Board -0r ·~ designee related to 1he

8 program's contem. Respoadent shail pay all~ of the remedial edm:atiQn program. The

9 peri® of proll.ltloo will be~- ;fnccesk. 1111ti1 such remedial ed.ucadon is completed.

I 0 Contin.uing ed\;cilrion ()Ourse;; used r the ,wat .of licensure will not be used fur remedial

l l educanon. : 1 .

12 . '. 1.. Outside Mci1itor qf ~ Pnictice.. ~ittiin. 60 day; <>i"the effective .

l:;. date of I.his dcCIBton, Respondent shitll sulmiit ~o the Boord. for !ts prmr appruvol. the name anc I

t4 qualifications of one onoore billing\ pr;ictice 1 oniror.

15 Each proposed mon4r shall be a California licensed dentist who shall submit

J6 written reports to the Boord on·a qferty · verifying thai monitnr has !aken place a$

l i required and mclude .~ e\'aluaU;:m f Respondf11''s perfonnance. Tt shall be Respondent's

i8 responsibility to assure that I.he requ~ report . are filed m a timely mllilller.

19 The ntonitm(S) shall ~ i ent, Wilh BO prior bUSinCSS QI profC.~ional

' 20 relationship with Respondent and~ monitorl ) shall not be in a familial relationship wilh or be

21 an employee. partneror11Ssooiareofrd$p0ilde1lt All eos!s oftlte monitoring shall be bomc by

22 the RespondenL : ! I '

12. Restitution. Ytimin 30 ~s of the effective date ofthis decision, 23

24 Respondent shaD make restitution tolAetna ln~ in the amount ofS704.30 and ro Larinde I I

15 Hill in the amount of SS03 .53. Proof of paym shall be provided 10 the Oen12I Board ""ithin

26 ten {10) days aftet·~iration oftht.t· (30} a:ys.oftbeeliecn\.>e date of the Board's decision

27 13. Cen'un1u1~ mce C6 diffon ofl"robation. Within 60 days of the I

28 effective date of this decision, R~ $halllsubmlt tu the :Board. for its prior approva~ a

communicy service program. h the tjrst.year of~obalion in which R~ndent shaH pro\'ide I ,

' f i

~ '

2

3

4

5

6

7

g

9

10

11

12

13

14 ..

15

16

17

!&

19

20

21

22

23

:24

::;

26

27

28

............ ,,·-· _ ........... ~· ~- .. --~t-····· .... ··-·'-·--'-'- .. __ ,.._, ___ ,;.;,..... __ _,,. ·'·-'·-·------ .......... ~.-..

• • volunteer ser..ices·on a regular bas~ to a ~prllfit community or· charitable fuciliry or ~ency

I . for al least thirty 130) hours. Sllcl! ijomm\Jll ~ shall be ll{'>n-dental rchned

14. EtJiics. Withf 3() day of the effecri"e date oflhi$ dedsion. Re!lf!Olldc:n1

shaH submi1 for piior Board l!PPl"-O"tl u in ethics which will be completed within !he fi;si

year of probation. Units obiained ~an ed ~in ethics shall l!Oi be used for

con1inuing educarion units required~or ~I of lleeosure.

15. Resp-0ndent ~ not ~o ·hold himself om as Dr. Ale."<ander Pana or Dr.

Alex Pana unless he legally cha11g, hls namelio AlE:X8Ddar Pana or Alex l'llllll ~subsequent I}

properly noiifi"S the Board nfthe lerl name t:ge i ACC,tu11,.NCE i i

I ha\'t: carefully read ~e above \stipulated Settlement and Disciplinary Order and

have fully discussed it with my att~ey, Jam · D. Savage, Esq. I undersmnd the stipulation a,.;d

ellf4!!' info this Stipulated Settlemenr and . the effi,ct it will h.ave on my·Dentiilti~. Disciplinary Ol'der vohmlllrily, kn · ly,

Dei:ision and Order oflhe Demal.B d ofCalilfuinili.

DATED: \1.llC\{ob ....

' ' PAN. . .. a.k.a. . · ·. PANAPOUR. INC a.k.a. ANDSR PA.'1\1.A. D.D.S. a.k.a. DR ALEX PA..'1A, D.D.S. a.k.a. · PANA and a.ka.. EC 'ECTIC liEALTH (Respond!lnt)

; R:es· oomlin1

I have read and fuUy ~ irh Respondent lhe terms and condition~ and ' ' other ma!.ters conlained in the abo9ef Si\pulated Settlement and Disciplinary Order. r approve a!S . . I

form and comeni.

DA TED:. _ _:.::,,_;;:_•:::.1r.::.:'"°"'-="-- --+--

~~ I I I f

•"'·

• I i

I

--..... ,., .. &••·•~ ·-'- ----~-·~-- '·•·- .,.,..,._.._ __ __

• £NnrlR!iEMENI

The foregoing Stip1.1~ied Setl4ment anti Di!X':iplinary Order lJ;hereby re:<pectib!ly 1 I ,

2

3 submitted for consideration by the !Jlental ~of California <>fthe Depanment of Consumer

4 Affairs.

5 DAT.ED:

6

1

8

9

JO 001 ~ID: L'\20i>l60(•7\l;

l l 1.111lll61!6-~'Pi

11

14

15

16

17

18

!9

20

21

23

24

26

27

28

I I

I

' i ' rvrm Attomey Gencral

e ;-,{ Oiliibmia

• • "• • "• • •' ·• • ~'.,;• ",,..,;•,-:~w·•f·• \'·, •~." ""_.,_.,_..._. •. ,,· .. '., .. _",) __ '.•-'.-- C,,• ,._ .•• :.·,:>.::;:'.,•· .. '.',',· • _._-.............. ...... ~---·:.--. ~'"~ ·.· .. ·' _,.___, , ... , . i ·-··. ~-...- --- --- ~-~--···"'""' ............. , ...

•

! I 1.

I : E h(bit ...

•

'· .x. I~,..,

"""""'•• N,. DBC 2904-7?

I

._,_

""

1

2

3

4

5

6

i

s 9

!O

l i

il

l3

14

15

16

• .

BILL LOCKYER., Attorney Gener.i.Ii [ oftbeStateofCalifomm ! L.c_

Ml.CFIEI.. W. VALBNTlNfi,State8*i'No.1Sjroll7 Deputy Attorney Genera! I ,

Califtmiia .Depanmimt of Justice t

300 So. Spring Stre~ Silite l7fJ2 Los Angeles, CA 90013 Telephone: {213) 897-1034 Facsimile: (213} 897-2804

Att<irneys for Complainant

In the Matter of the Accusation Agli.ixjst: !

ALlREZAPA..~OUR,D.D.S. i a.le.a. ALIR:EZAPANAPO'tJR.,:JNC. i a.k.a. .'\.LE..XA:~ER PANA, DD.S. I a.le.a. DR. ALEX PANA. D.D.S. a.k.a. DR. PANA and 1

a.k.a. ECLECTIC HEALTH 1917 Selby Avenue, No. 302 Los .~es, CA 90025

•

Case No. UBC IQll.I.. i2

OAHNo.

ACCUSATION

· Demal License 1'10. 41661 17

IS

19

20

21

'~ _,.

~· ~

24

,. _;)

26

,~ .:.:

28

!

I i l

Complainant alleges: \ i

.. "'""'"""'· ~~-~~·· ;, ""'''lki" I capacity as the Executivie Officer of nje Dcnw ~ of California, Depanment<if Co115umer

Affairs (Board}. \ \ :

2. On or about Alf 21, l . , the Board imredDental Li~ No. 41661 to

AlirezaPanahpour, D.D.S. also~ as. . Panapour, fnc~ Alexander Pane, D.D.S. Dr.

Alex Pana, D.D.S., Dr. Pana and :Eetefic Healthj (Respondent). The Denial Lice:nse was iu full 1 ... force and eff'ect at all times relevant tq the~ brought herein and will exp.ire on June 30,

. I :!005, unlessr~ewcd. \ i

j

• i • I I

l ~DIIZTIQN . '

2 3. This Aceusatij)n is broi4ght before the Board, under the authority of the I, I

3 follo\ll'i:ng Jaws. All section nif~ art to tl:ie Bus.iness a,nd Professions Code unless otherwise I I

4 indicated. I : I ' ' 4. Section 1670 ~tes: :

"Any licentiate may +vebis li~revoked or suspendlld or be reprimanded or

7 be placed on probatiort '!)y ~board for~ional conduct. or ilreompetence, or gross

8 negli~, or repeated act$ ofneglite in~ or h~ p~fession,.or ~ th~ issuance of 11 lklease

9 by ntlsiake, or for any other cause ~licable · ·Ole licentiate provided Jn this ch~. The

5

6

! 0 pi:oceedings under this aiticle &iu!ll ht oo iri aceordm:e witli Chapter 5 (commencing

l l with Section 11500) of Pert l ofOivilrion 3 of itle 2 ofthe Govemrm:nl Code, and ihe board I I .

12 shall have: all the poweIS grll!ltee m+" \ I 13 5. Secllonlo80~ates,ln~empart:

"Unprofessional conmjct by a~ lkensed under this chapter (Chapter 4 l i5 (commencing ·with section J600)J fS ,etinedas,\bu~is not limited to, the viofation of any one of I l 6 the following: i I !

"{a) The obtaining of sf' (ee by~ or misrepr.esen!llti.on. I I, I

"(t) The use of aey &~e, auum . or fiotitious naine. either as an individual, firm, I . ., I '

18

19 I i

20 corporation, or otherwise, or any namt other the name under \vhich he or she is licensed tc :

1 21 prac:tic~, in advertising ar in any otheij manner • that he or she is praetking or vtill 1 '

Z2 practice dentistry. except !l1tll ruune 1 is speclfi

' I

iit a valid pemrit issued punuant to Section

1701.5. i i ! I \ \

24 ! f I

"(kl Tht:: l!dvertismginrolati.M ,fSection 651.

:.~~)-The violation ofJy of the +visions ofilii& division. ... "

. I I

15

16

2S !Ii

l \ j

~

1

2

.. -·~···-·~--""'····--· .~-~--~-·~ ...... --.. --------.. ·-·-- ·-·-· --·. -----

• \

i •

6. Section 1685 ftares: l "In addition to other ijcts constjmting unpio.fessional comluct lll!der this chap1;;r

. I ; 3 r chapter 4 (commencing with~ 1600)], ~tis unprofessional condutl fur a person Jicemed

4 under this chapicr lo require, either Jirectly otjthrough an office policy, or knowingly permit the ' I

5 de!i\'ery of <fo!ltal care that diseoura~es necessWy treatment or pennits clearly exressive

6 trea.unem, incompetent treatment, +y n~l l~t, repeated negligent ;1.cts, or

7 unnecessary treatment, as d~ P,y the.~dofpractice in the commanity."

8 7. Sec.tion 651 atfte&. lnp~tpart: 9 "(a) Ii. is unlawful for fmy ~ licensed 'l!l1der this divisinn or under any

1 o initiative act relined to in this divisi'im to ~11te or cause to be disi!eminared any form of

l 1 public comimmicatien containing a t; lse, ~llll!, ·misleading, or decepth-e statement, claim,

12 or image for the putp00e of or likely ! induce;\ directly or indirectly, the re11dering of

13 professi0nal services or furnishing o~prod.ucts pn connection v.ith the professional practice or

\4 ~ess for ~·hich h~ ~r she is Ike+ ~ •ptlic oolDilluni~on" · ~ ~ in.~i; ~on 15 includes, but is not limiled to. col!'~ y meaus·of mail, televmon, raa10, monon

16 . book,!' d~ofb~ .. Int h

17

:=~=~tlon.15t or \ · . , .

1

. . ans practr!i-Oners, ernet, or ot. er

i 8 "(b) A false, fraudu1~t, mi~ or c!eeeptive statilmei\[, claim, or image I I

19 includes a Stabml:mt or claim that OOf ilny of+ following: • • I _I

21

" (I l Contains a misreifn:~entatior of fact.

"(2) Is likely lo misle~ or det1rite because of a failure to disclose material facts.

"( 3 ){A) Is intended or iis likely u! create false or unjustified expectations of ! I

23 favorable results, including the use Of any ph4grilpb or otlrer image that does oot accuraiely

24 depict the results oftbe prooed\lre ~.g adv+ or that has b~ altered in any manner from

:?.5 the image of the actual subject depic*"1 in the photognph-or image. : I

"(B) Use of any phot~b or~· image of a model wittiout clearly stating in a 26

27 ,..,.,,m..tt""'ooln Wily~,tho~t ...... _""-"•f uoodot••

28 violation of subdivision (a). For . s of~ paragraph, a model is anyone other than an I .

! 13 I

·-·---·- - -~- .......... _ .. -· --'"""t··-··'----1 .... ·--····-.. ·-·'---·

• • i

1 actual patient, who has undergollt) ~e ~being advertised, of the licensee who is I I

2 advertising for his oi.- Im servi~. i · i I

3 "(C) Use of any ph1graph ,other~ of an actual patimt ihat depicts or

4 purports to depict the result$ of ill}' fr~, or presents "beforo" and "aiter" views of a patient.

5 withou• specifying in a prDI!li:ncnt ~p in rily readable type siz~ what procedures were

6 performed C>n that patient is a viqj~ Of survision (a). Any "before'' and "after" Views (i)

7 shall be comparable ill ~ r that resu1is are not di....OOrted by favonblc poses,

8 lighting, or other features ofpresenqmou, and (il) sball contain a statement that the same "before'' . I

9 an,! "after" results i:na.y not oocur, all pati

10

!!

"(4) Relates to fees, d,fuer than standlird consultation foe or a range of fees for

specific types of services, "".ithoUt ~lly ind ~fioally diiK;tosing all variables and othr.:r i .

12 ·ai fact : I ma!$'! . OIS. i I "(S) Colltains other ~eselltati~ or imp1icatiODS lhli.t in ~able probability 1

14 will cause an ordinaril:y prudent~ ti>. mis~otbedeceived. 15 "(6) Makes a claim ~of P"\U:ssional superimity or of performing services in a ,

n

16 su!lClior manner, unless·that claim ~ rcl~t ~ lhe ~being perfonneihnd can be • ! \ .

l 7 substantiated with obj11ttiv.e Sclen~ evideno~. 18 "(1) Makes a sckntili~ claim tbf carmot be substantiated by reliable, peer

19 reviewed, published .sciCl!tific itUdie!;. : ' '

20 • "t"8) fuclud~ an)' rt, ~emeot. or te$timonial that is likely 10 misiead

21 or deceive because ofa failure to diSf1osero4al Wts. •.. ~ 8. Section 125.sJ subdh'i~ (11-), slatCS, in pertinent pan:

l . i 23 "Except as otherwise \1roVidtd J:t>i law. in any order issued in molution of a

i I 14 disciplinacy prot:eeding bdOre any 1fani 4 the department ... t.l!c board may request the

15 administrati~ law judge til direct a ijcentiate tqlll'ld to bave Cl>mmitted a violatioJJ or violations i I

25 of the licensing act to pay a sum. not'° exceed the reasonable co$!$ of the investigation and . I !

27 tnfom:ment of the case." I I \ \ ' i

i i

14

• • i ·:

1 . fIR,5tr CAUS. FQ1l DlSClPI..®; I I

(Incempetence. ~Negligcl\lie and Repeated Acts of Negligence) I I

9, Respondent i1 subject~ disciplinm-)'ooti.On 1l!lder section 1670, in tliat

2

3 . i

4 Respondent committed acts of ~fessiooal f>nduct, incompetence, gross negligence and

5 repeated acts of negligen.~e in his p,fession J a dentist ihrough the restornuve treatment

6 performed on at least thre<: of client f .!L's l (#s 18, 19 & 30) which ~ below the

7 commonly accepted stlllldard of care I and of i r quality in general, 8$ set forth above in

' ' 8 paragraph 10. l \

ihcwdq.um L.H, . '

10, On orbetw~ Jlille 199~ and September 18, 2002; client LR regularly

9

IO ' .

l l visited Respondent for dental sen:ict and in rtgard to her teeth #18, #l 9 and #30, she

12 • -~ •'-- foll ' : I expeDCDC= ...,., 1JW111g: i I 1, ! ' . ~ i 13 Tooth #18

i4 a. On or about Npvember ~O, 2001, Re..~dent performed and submitted for

15 billing l!Il in!ay/onlay for toOth #18. i \

16 b. On waboutJt 25, 2ook, clientL.H. was diagnosed by another dentist \

17 that the porcelain inlay on tooth 1#18 fas deJve and deca~at the mesial gi.ngival margin. I c. On or about S~embey Ip. 20()2, client L.H. ha<i a l'OOl canal performed I

19 on iooth # J 8 by mother d~st. !! . I, \

d. On ill .&bout~ 23, f 001. cliem LH. bad a penuanent cast restoratioo

1.

:! I placed GD tooth #18 by a:nolher dentiJt. i

Toolh #19 i1

I I e. On or about ~'Ch !999.!Resp<.mdent perfunned and submitted f(ir billing j

: ! .

!8

20

23 ; i

24 a crown ibrtooili # 19 . I

f. On oi-about M~ 13, 1+9, client L.H. had a root cani! performed on

26 tooth #19 by enother dentist. ·

27 g, On or about Ar 20001 Raspondent submitted a billing for a cro1111 on

28 too!h #19 and states to the insllraooe ~y +this tooth is sensitive and "patieni needs a

) ~

/

·-- ··' .... ·,·--~· c .. ~-....... ~•· ": .. O• .. .-,. :.;,:.0 .. ..:.4::-"-'-"-'·"'+''-'~""'~'""'"' """"·' .. · ... - . .,:;,.•.-· ... ·-.. .- · ..... ·

• '! ' •

l

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

I l

12

13

14

15

16

'7 1,

18

19

20

21

22

:?3

24

7" _, 26

~~ _,

new 1;rown to prevent irreversible Ifli>itis ~ root canal treatmeo~" b. On Dr'a.bollt tmy 2s:, 2~2, cllenr L.H. was diagnosed by another dentist

thattheCI'OWll Ott tooth#!9had~ m~an(l was to.need ofreplacemen!.

L Oil or about ~ovcnibJ 2 I, 2002, client L. Fl. had a pcnnanent cast i i ' ' restoration placed oil tooth.#19 by fotherdejitist.

Tugtb j;"3Q ' . i

j. On or abQut tty 14, 1 ~8, Respondent perfmmcd and submitted for

billing an indirect pulp cap/amalg ' fur tootfl #3-0.

k. . On O! abou1ugust 2. ,999, Respondent performed and submitted for

biliing an indirect pulp caplamal~ for~. #30.

l. On or about J)iiy 18, 2olxi, Respondent perfonned and submitted for I '

billing a crown ibr tooth #30. l \ \

m. . . On or about lfY 25, .10~2, client.Lli. was diagnosed by another dentist

that !he cro"'11 cin tooth #30 had opeji mmgms lmd was m need of replacement.

n. On or about ~9, t002, dientL.lL had a root canal perfonned on

too.th #30 by another dentist ! \

o. On or about November~. 2002, client LH. had a permanent cast I '

restoration pli!ii:ed on tooth #30 by ~er den~st. Aeyna Life 1nsJmmce \ :

p. Onm about~4, 1(}2, afterc.otnmitteereview of client L.H.'s

dental records and sei::ond ophllons ~ another ~st,. the Grievance and A:ppcal Depart:men\ of

Aetna Li:fu lni;µra.t:ice Company (~)issued~ letter-in regard to their findings relating to : I

replacement of~s onteetb #l9 r #30j replacement of the inlay on tooth#l8, due ta

open margins and active decay after~n , 's treatment, as follows:

q. Aetna follDd.tljat the cto I . ·· ~ teeth # 19 and #30 need to be replaced due II . I ~ to open margins and active decay. \ I I

r. Aettta found tljat the inlaJ oo tooth #18 needed tc be replaced by a crovm

28 restoration. i l

• • 1 s. Aetn1!. indi~ that R,iesponde!n ~ose to provide omy a comPQSite

2 res.'"Oration on toGth #18:when he sjiowd~ provided a root canal foll.owed by a crown

3 restoration.

4

I I I

: i t Respondent ~as directed by Aetna to issue to client LH. a full refund in

I I .

5 the amoum ofS503.53, which was ~e ~tclien1 LF!. paid to Respo;ident J:OWard the

6 i?eatment. i 1

1 I I j :

u. Aetna requied a refuhd in !he amount of$704.30 as their portion of tile

S .plaD paid towards elient L.H. 's prur~t on teeth #18, #.19 llllli #30 by Respondent . I

7

' 9 Records :

1 ~) v. On or about ~ober 9~ 2003, the Board received fu:im Respondent

1 l duplicale alid incornpl.eterecor.ds f<t his ~ent of client L.H. from on or betlv-een Juw: ! 99S I I

I

! 12 and September 18, 2002. , I

si:n:t:::~ 13

14

l 1. Respondem ~ subject 1 disciplin8ry action U1l.di:r section 1670, as defined

16 in section 1680, su~ivis.iP!I {f) and Kk), in.~ :Respondent used t.lie false, assumed, or fictilious

17 names of Alireza Panapour, mc .. Al~ Pfa. nil,s., Dr-. Alex Pana,, D.D.S., Dt. Pana and

18 Eclectic Health, uamestyles·olher~ the nan\.e under whicli M is licensed to practice I I

~&JAUS~ FOR DISCIPLINE I .

(F~ F~ JM'isle"adi!!gStaicmcnts)

12. Respondent J subject J di:seiplinsy adi1m under section 1670, .as definet1 I i

22 i.11 section 1680, subdivisien '(11), infnjuru:tio~ with section 651, in lhat for clieot L.H. 1'

23 Resnonde111 rnisrej,resen1ed statem..l.r. of fact l.o misll!ad or deceived others when he · -r- ' I Used namest}jles other~ under which he was Ii~. as set fortl! above I

' I l : 25 in paragraph 9, l ! '

26 b. Sn:bmitted def a! claims~ insurance oompa."lies for pilymer>l more than \

27 once for !he slline dental~ a& set rorth above in p~ 10. \

e. Requested tbtj payment¥~ based upon a scientific claim which I I :1 1 i l ! \ I

15

19

'.!O

21

24

18

.. ~,

·-

• • i i :

1

2

cannot be substantiai:ed by reliable :peer revik pub~ scientific studies. as set forth above

in para~h lO, and :mQ!"l! ~ sub~on (g). : . I

3 . 'F®*TH CA~ FQR DlSClP\J!'!"E

4 (Obtalmmg F~ by M:isrepreseniation) I I

5 13. Respondent js Stlbject~ disciplinary action under sccrion 1670, as defined

6 in secfum 1680, sl\bdivision (a). ~~·far ~ent W!. Rmlpondenl obtained fees by fraud or

~

;

g

9

I ' misrepresent.atiOn, as set forth aooie in~ 10.

~ CAU.ffiRDrscrpI.lNE . I

:(Unp1o~nal Conduct) . I ' . I .

10

1 !

12

13

14

15

16

14. Respondeilt 1s subjeet ro disciplinary action under section l 670, as deimed

ii1 seciion 1685, on the gmunds orhrof'esllibai conduct, in that Respondent commiued acts

which discouraged nec.essacy ~ent or p4mttcd excessive treatment, incompetent treat'lient,

grossly negligent treatment, repeat¥~ acts, unnecessary treatment, and perfonning

smiccs below a licensed dentist's f ta:ndard ~f care; failed to. keep clear, legible and complae (

dentru treatment records, and flliled:to ·compl~ will! requests by the B~ for a :full and complete II

D<.'lltal Treatment Record on patimi L.H., as~· forth above in paragraphs 9 lhrough 13,

17 inclusive. I

ls i I

19 I PlAYER I ;

20 W1IEREFORE, CoiWlai:nant ~II® that a hearing be held on !he matters ~ein . I . I

21 alleged, a.'ld that fullov.in,g the hearlng, the D~stal Board of C!.lifumia issue a decision; . ' 22 l. Revtikingorfispend4Dcnial.License No. 41661, isSued [0 Ahreza

23 Panahpour, D.D.S. , , l

24 2. Ordering Al{~u Pan~lll', DD.S. UI pay the Dental Board of California 1

1 25 the reaso..'12ble costs of the investi~on and ehrorcemeut of this aise, pUISU2!lt ta Business and ! !

26 Professions COde section 1253; [ i

27 /// !

28 t:i

8

i

2 DATED:

3

4

5

6

7

s

9

lO

11

12

l3

14

!5

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

?" _, 26

27 ?..._,'fnro SOOGS74l 'l\o'J"'

28 l1.i'21'2004<irr.:

··~ .. ,........---·-······"-·"-'·'' .,.~,~---·-- ·-···.~···· ......................... '" --~ ··-- ..

• • i i

3. Taking suchi°tber ancl further action as deemed necessary .ind proper.

:);6/or \ : :

•,

Compl~

9

• •

EX

Exhibit 2

Vut Certified Mail

Alireza Panahpour, DDS

• Law Offices of DAVID J. WILZIG • A Professional Corporation

1900 Avenue of the Stars, SUite 1900 Los Angeles, Galifomia 90067

Telephone{310)286-1188 Facsimile (310) 286-2711

April 30, 2010

2701 Ocean Park Bouievard Suite 108 Santa Monica, Catifomia 90405 ·

Re: Your Patient Pamela McGraevy

Dear Dr. Panahpour:

Be advised, that, in accord with section 364 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Pamela McGreevy intends to file suit against you for damages resulting from personal injury to her based on, among others, your failure to provide appropriate dental treatment, failure to diagnose, failure to operate within the standard of care of the community and fraud.

Plaintiff will allege and provide the ~ng-~ses arlct injµries as a result of the aforementioned personal negligence: General damages, medical and related expenses, loss of earnings, costs of suit incurred, and for such other further relief.as the court may deem proper. . . · ·

If there is insurance coverage for the claims of Ms. McGreev)i, please folward this letter to your carrier.

Very~;~\ yours,

((J!~lfu 1

/tf/j-.iJ;'?f DAVID J. WILZIG'

DJW/

• Law Offices of DAVID J. WILZIG •

V18 Cerlitied Mail

Center for New Medicine 6 Hughes, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92618

A Professional Corporation 1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1900

Los Angeles, California 90067 Telephone(310)286-1188 Facsimile (310) 286-2711

April 30, 2010

Re: Your Patient Pamela McGreevy

To Whom It May Concern:

Be advised, that, in accord with Section 364 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Pamela McGreevy intends to file suit against you for damages resulting from personal injury to her based on, among others, your failure to provide appropriate dental treatment, failure to diagnose, failure to operate within the standard of care of the community and fraud .

.. Plaintiff will allege and provide the following losses· and injuries as a result of the

aforementioned personal· negligence: General damages, medical and. related expenses, loss of earnings, costs of su~ incurred, and for sUth other further relief as the court may deem proper. .. ·

If there is insurance eoirerage for the claims of Ms. McGreevy, please forward this letter to your carrier. · ·

Very truly yours,

~:~ CnNct~ DAVIDJ. ~jlZIGh0M

DJW/

.... , .. '.,

-~·

• •

EX

Exhibit 3

Via Certified Mail

• Law Offices of -9 DAVID J. WILZIG

A Professional Corporation 1801Century Park East, Suite 2200

Los Angeles, California 90067 Telephone (310) 286-1188 Facsimile (310) 286-2711

September 7, 2010

Leigh Erin Connealy, M.D. South Coast Center for New Medicine 6 Hughes Avenue, Suite 100 Irvine, California 92618

Re: Your Patient: Pamela McGreevy

Dear Dr. Connealy:

Be advised, that, in accord with Section 364 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Pamela McGreevy, intends to file suit against you for damages resulting from personal injury to her based on, among others, your failure to provide appropriate medical treatment, failure to diagnose, and failure to operate within the standard of care of the community.

Plaintiff will allege and provide the following losses and injuries as a result of the aforementioned personal negligence: General damages, medical and related expenses, loss of earnings, costs of suit incurred, and for such other further relief as the court may deem proper.

If there is insurance coverage for the claims of Ms. McGreevy, please forward this letter to your carrier.

DJW/

•

1

2

• PROOF OF SERVICE

CCP 1013(a} FRCP 5(b}

• 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

4 I declare that I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within entitled action. I am a resident of and am employed in the County of Los Angeles,

5 State of California. My business address 1801 Century Park Easf, Suite 2200, Los Angeles, California 90067.

6 On November 1, 2010, I served the documents(s) described as First

7 Amended Complaint for Damages on all interested parties by placing the a true and correct copy in a sealed envelope addressed as follows:

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

_lL

J_

See Attached Service List

(BY MAIL} I am "readily familiar" with the firms practice for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing, and that correspondence, with postage thereon fully prepaid, will be deposited with the United States Postal Service on the date herein above in the ordinary course of business at Los Angeles, California.

(BY PERSONAL SERVICE) I caused such envelope to be delivered by hand to the offices of the addressee(s).

(BY FACSIMILE) I caused the above-referenced document to be delivered by facsimile to the addressee(s).

(BY OVERNIGHT COURIER) I caused the above-referenced envelope(s) to be delivered to an overnight courier service for delivery to the addressee(s}.

(STATE) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on November 1, 2010 at Los Angeles, California.

• • •

I Service List

2

3 Patrick A. McCall, Esq. Law Offices of Patrick A. McCall

4 765 The City Drive South Suite 350

5 Orange, California 92868 Tel. (714) 740-8400

6 Attorney for Defendants South Coast Medical Center for

7 New Medicine, aka Center for New Medicine, Inc.

8 Leigh Erin Connealy, M.D.

9

10 S. Keven Steinberg Fink & Steinbei

II 11500 Olympic oulevard Suite 316

12 Los Angeles, California 90064 Tel. (310) 268-0780

13 Attorneys for Defendant Alireza Panahpour, DDS

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

superior court of california county of orange … · 14 utah 84042 is, and at all times herein...

Documents