SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE. 1. Negligent Hiring/Retention. 4. Battery

Transcription

1 DAVD J. WLZG CCSBN 56232l LAW OFFCES OF DAVD J. W ZG 2 A Professional Coq:ioration 1801 Century Park East, Suite Los Angeles, California Tel. (3f0) Fax (310) david@wilzig.net 5 Attorney for Plaintiff 6 PAMELA McGREEVY FLED SUPEROR COURT OF CALFORNA COUNTY OF ORANGE CENTRAL JUSTCE CENTER NOV ALAN Cl>RLSON. Clerk o1 the Court ~~ SUPEROR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALFORNA FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE PAMELA McGREEVY 12 Plaintiff, 13 vs. 14 CAVTAT MEDCAL 15 TECHNOLOGES, NC.; ROBERT JONES; SOUTH COAST MEDCAL 16 CENTER FOR NEW MEDCNE, aka CENTER FOR NEW MEDCNE; 17 LEGH ERN CONNEALY, M.D.; ALREZA PANAHPOUR, D.D.S.; 18 ZYTO CORP., a Delaware corporation and DOES 1 through 19 50, inclusive, Defendants. Case No Hon. Gregory H. Lewis Department C-26 FRST AMENDED COMPLANT FOR DAMAGES: 1. Negligent Hiring/Retention 2. Dental Malpractice 3. Lack of nformed Consent 4. Battery 5. Sexual Battery 6. ntentional Misrepresentation 7. Negligent Misrepresentation 8. ntentional Misrepresentation 9. Medical Negligence 10. lntentionarm1srepresentation 11. Negligent Misrepresentation 12. Unfair Competition Pursuant to Business & Professions Code COMES NOW Plaintiff PAMELA McGREEVY and alleges as follows: 24 PARTES Defendant SOUTH COAST MEDCAL CENTER FOR NEW MEDCNE, NC., 26 aka CENTER FOR NEW MEDCNE, 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

2 business located at 6 Hughes Avenue, Suite 100, rvine, California Defendant LEGH ERN 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, rvine, California Defendant ALREZA 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, rvine, California and, at all times 11 herein mentioned, was practicing biological dentistry as an independent contractor 12 retained by the SOUTH COAST MEDCAL CENTER FOR NEW MEDCNE, NC., aka 13 CENTER FOR NEW MEDCNE. During the time of Plaintiffs dental treatment, and 14 unbeknownstto her, Defendant PANA was on probation with the DENTAL BOARD OF 15 CALFORNA 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 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 DefendantCAVTATMEDCAL TECHNOLOGES, NC. (hereinafter referred 25 to as "GAVT 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 , 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

3 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 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 CAVTAT. All actions taken by 7 CAVTAT 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 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 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 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

4 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 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 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 against PANA of incompetence, gross negligence, 18 repeated acts of negligence, false, fraudulent or misleading statements. and 19 unprofessional conduct 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, through March 22, 2009, during which time Plaintiff was Defendant PANA's 23 dental patient and unaware of his probationary status At some time prior to Plaintiff's treatment with Defendant PANA, PANA read 25 advertisements disseminated by Defendants CAVTAT and JONES that the Cavitat 26 device was the only ultrasound imaging system forthe alveolar process and purchased 27 the Cavitat machine from Defendants CAVTAT and JONES for use in his dental 28 practice. 4

5 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 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 At such time as the Cavitat device was used for diagnostic purposes in 10 Defendant PANA's treatment of Plaintiff, Defendants CAVTAT and JONES had not 11 complied with investigational device exemption (DE) and nstitutional Review Board 12 (RB) 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 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 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 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

6 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 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; 13 Tooth 17: Surgical sequestrectomy for osteomyelitis with a bone-replacement 14 graft; 15 Tooth 31: Repair of hard and soft tissue with biologic material; 16 Tooth 32: Surgical sequestrectomy for osteomyelitis with a bone-replacement 17 graft 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 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

7 1 allergies, lack of sleep, toxins, emotional strain and traumatic events On or about April 30, 2010, and pursuant to California Code of Civil 3 Procedure, Section 364, Plaintiff caused Notice of ntent 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 A true and correct copy of said letter is attached hereto as 7 Exhibit "2" and incorporated herein by reference On or about April 30, 2010, and pursuant to California Code of Civil 9 Procedure, Section 364, Plaintiff caused a Notice of ntent 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, rvine, California A true and correct copy of said letter is 12 attached hereto as Exhibit "2" and incorporated herein by reference On or about September 7, 2010, and pursuant to California Code of Civil 14 Procedure, Section 364, Plaintiff caused a Notice of ntent to Sue letter to be mailed 15 by certified mail to Defendant LEGH ERN CONNEALY, M.D. at her principal place 16 of business located at 6 Hughes Avenue, Suite 100, rvine, California A true 17 and correct copy of said letter is attached hereto as Exhibit "3" and incorporated herein 18 by reference. 19 FRST CAUSE OF ACTON 20 (For Negligent Hiring/Retention Against Defendants 21 SCMCNM, CONNEALY and Does 1 through 5) 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 On or about March 18, 2005, the DENTAL BOARD OF CALFORNA 25 brought an ACCUSATON 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

8 1 unprofessional conduct On or about December 19, 2006, Defendant PANA entered into a Stipulated 3 Settlement and Disciplinary Order with the DENTAL BOARD OF CALFORNA, 4 wherein PANA agreed that the Dental Board could establish a basis forthe allegations 5 made in its Accusation No. DBC against PANA of incompetence, gross 6 negligence, repeated acts of negligence, false, fraudulent or misleading statements, 7 and unprofessional conduct Pursuant to the Decision and Order of the DENTAL BOARD OF 9 CALFORNA dated February 22, 2007, Defendant PANA was placed on probation, 10 effective March 22, 2007 through March 22, 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 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 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

9 that an undue risk to patients, including Plaintiff, would exist as a result of PANA's 2 hiring and/or retention 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 CALFORNA for gross incompetence and repeated acts of negligence in the 10 performance of professional dental services 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 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 As a further proximate result of the wrongful conduct of Defendants 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 As a further proximate result of the wrongful conduct of Defendants 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

10 to amend this complaint to set forth the full amount of damage sustained as a result 2 thereof when ascertained As a further proximate result of the wrongful conduct of Defendants 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 As a further proximate result of the wrongful conduct of Defendants 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 ACTON (For Dental Malpractice Against Defendants PANA, SCMCNM and Does 6 through 10, inclusive) Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference all of the allegations 17 set forth in paragraphs 1 through 24 as though fully set forth 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 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 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

11 1 inform Plaintiff that Defendant PANA was on probation with the Dental Board of 2 California On or about February 12, 2008, and continuing thereafter through October , 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 t 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 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 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 As a further proximate result of the negligence of Defendants, and each of 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

12 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 3 unascertainable. Plaintiff will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to set forth 4 the full amount of damage when ascertained As a further proximate result of the negligence of Defendants, and each of 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 As a further proximate result of the negligence of Defendants, and each of 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 THRD CAUSE OF ACTON (For Lack of nformed Consent Against Defendants PANA, SCMCNM and Does 6 through 10, inclusive) Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference all of the allegations 19 set forth in paragraphs 1 through 24 as though fully set forth herein Pursuant to Plaintiffs retention of Defendants PANA, SCMCNM and Does 21 6 through 10, inclusive, to diagnose and treat her dental complaints, said Defendants 22 rendered professional dental services in the diagnosis, treatment and care of Plaintiff Ono; about February 12, 2008, and continuing thereafter through October , 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

13 1 54. f 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 t 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 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 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 18 to set forth the full amount of damage sustained as a result thereof when ascertained As a further proximate result of the conduct of Defendants, and each of 20 them, Plaintiff has sustained, and will continue to sustain, disabling, serious and 21 permanent physical injuries, all to Plaintiff's general damage in an amount presently 22 unascertainable. Plaintiff will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to set forth 23 the full amount of damage when ascertained As a further proximate result of the conduct of Defendants, and each of 25 them, Plaintiff has incurred medical, hospital and related expenses in a sum presently 26 u nascertainable. Plaintiff will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to set forth 27 the full amount of damage when ascertained As a further proximate result of the conduct of Defendants, and each of 13

14 1 them, Plaintiff will in the future incur medical, hospital and related expenses, the exact 2 nature and extent of which are currently unknown to Plaintiff. Plaintiff will seek leave 3 of Court to amend this Complaint to set forth the full amount of damage when 4 ascertained 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 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTON (For Sexual Battery Against Defendants PANA, SCMCNM and Does 11 through 15, nclusive) Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference all of the allegations 14 set forth in paragraphs 1 through 24 as though fully set forth herein Pursuant to Plaintiff's retention of Defendants PANA, SCMCNM and Does through 15, inclusive, to diagnose and treat her dental complaints, said Defendants 17 rendered professional dental services in the diagnosis, treatment and care of Plaintiff 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 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 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

15 1 full amount of damage sustained as a result thereof when ascertained As a further proximate result of the conduct of Defendants, and each of 3 them, Plaintiff has sustained, and will continue to sustain, disabling, serious and 4 permanent physical injuries, all to Plaintiff's general damage in an amount presently 5 unascertainable. Plaintiff will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to set forth 6 the full amount of damage when ascertained As a further proximate result of the conduct of Defendants, and each of 8 them, Plaintiff has incurred medical, hospital and related expenses in a sum presently 9 unascertainable. Plaintiff will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to set forth 10 the full amount of damage when ascertained As a further proximate result of the conduct of Defendants, and each of 12 them, Plaintiff will in the future incur medical, hospital and related expenses, the exact 13 nature and extent of which are currently unknown to Plaintiff. Plaintiff will seek leave 14 of Court to amend this Complaint to set forth the full amount of damage when 15 ascertained As a further proximate result of the wrongful conduct of Defendants, and 17 each of them, Plaintiff will in the future sustain loss of earnings and loss of earning 18 capacity, the exact nature and extent of which are currently unknown to Plaintiff. 19 Plaintiff will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to set forth the full amount of 20 damage when ascertained. 21. FFTH CAUSE OF ACTON (For Battery Against Defendants PANA, SCMCNM and Does 11-15, inclusive) Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference all of the allegations 25 set forth in paragraphs 1 through 24 as though fully set forth herein Pursuant to Plaintiff's retention of Defendants PANA, SCMCNM and Does through 15, inclusive, to diagnose and treat her dental complaints, said Defendants 28 rendered professional dental services in the diagnosis, treatment and care of Plaintiff. 15

16 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 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 As a proximate result of the conduct of Defendants, and each of them, 11 Plaintiff has sustained injury to her health, strength and activity, all of which injuries 12 have caused, and continue to cause, Plaintiff great mental, physical and nervous pain 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 As a further proximate result of the conduct of Defendants, and each of 16 them, Plaintiff has sustained, and will continue to sustain, disabling, serious and 17 permanent physical injuries, all to Plaintiff's general damage in an amount presently 18 unascertainable. Plaintiff will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to set forth 19 the full amount of damage when ascertained As a further proximate result of the conduct of Defendants, and each of 21 them, Plaintiff has incurred medical, hospital and related expenses in a sum presently 22 unascertainable. Plaintiff will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to set forth 23 the full amount of damage when ascertained As a further proximate result of the conduct of Defendants, and each of 25 them, Plaintiff will in the future incur medical, hospital and related expenses, the exact 26 nature and extent of which are currently unknown to Plaintiff. Plaintiff will seek leave 27 of Court to amend this Complaint to set forth the full amount of damage when 28 ascertained. 16

17 1 79. As a further proximate result of the wrongful conduct of Defendants, and 2 each of them, Plaintiff will in the future sustain loss of earnings and loss of earning 3 capacity, the exact nature and extent of which are currently unknown to Plaintiff. 4 Plaintiff will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to set forth the full amount of 5 damage when ascertained. 6 SXTH CAUSE OF ACTON 7 8 (For ntentional Misrepresentation Against Defendants PANA, SCMCNM and Does 16 through 20, nclusive) Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference all of the allegations 10 set forth in paragraphs 1 through 24 as though fully set forth herein 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 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 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. n 28 justifiable reliance on Defendant's representation, Plaintiff was induced to and did have 17

18 performed unnecessary and invasive dental treatment, all of which Plaintiff would not 2 have agreed to had she known the actual facts As a proximate result of the wrongful conduct of Defendants, Plaintiff was 4 induced to undergo unwarranted and unnecessary dental treatment As a further proximate result of the misrepresentations made by Defendants, 6 Plaintiff has sustained injury to her health, strength and activity, all of which injuries 7 have caused, and continue to cause, Plaintiff great mental, physical and nervous pain 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 As a further proximate result of the misrepresentations made by Defendants, 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 13 unascertainable. Plaintiff will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to set forth 14 the full amount of damage sustained as a result thereof when ascertained 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 18 to set forth the full amount of damage sustained as a result thereof when ascertained As a further proximate result of the misrepresentations made by 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 As a further proximate result of the misrepresentations made by Defendants, 25 and each of them, Plaintiff will in the future sustain loss of earnings and loss of earning 26 capacity, the exact nature and extent of which are currently unknown to Plaintiff. 27 Plaintiff will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to set forth the full amount of 28 damage when ascertained. 18

19 1 2 3 SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTON (For Negligent Misrepresentation Against Defendants PANA, SCMCNM and Does 16 through 20, nclusive) Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference all of the allegations 5 set forth in paragraphs 1 through 24 as though fully set forth herein 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 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 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 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 Plaintiff, at the time Defendants made these representations, was ignorant 19

20 of the falsity of Defendants' representations and believed them to be true. n 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 As a proximate result of the misrepresentations made by Defendants, 6 Plaintiff was induced to undergo unwarranted and unnecessary dental treatment As a further proximate result of the misrepresentations made by 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 O nervous pain and suffering. Plaintiff will seek leave of Court to amend this complaint 11 to set forth the full amount of damage sustained as a result thereof when ascertained As a further proximate result of the misrepresentations made by 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 As a further proximate result of the misrepresentations made by 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 22 thereof when ascertained As a further proximate result of the misrepresentations made by 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 As a further proximate result of the misrepresentations made by 20

21 - 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 EGHTH CAUSE OF ACTON (For ntentional Misrepresentation Against Defendants CAVTAT, JONES and Does 21 through 25, nclusive) 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 At Cavitat Educational Conferences, through information and advertising 11 by its President and CEO, Bob Jones, on the website controlled and 12 maintained by Defendants Cavitat and Jones and on links provided on the cavitat 13 website such as and as marketed through nnovation 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 CAVTAT, 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 NCO, 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 nstitutional Review Board 28 supervised studies, the results of which were published in peer-reviewed journals; 21

22 f. That the Cavitat device was capable of, and approved for, diagnosing 2 infection; 3 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 The above representations made by Defendants CAVTAT, 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 RB 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 NCO or identifying any specific bone 27 pathology; The FDA had given only limited marketing clearance to the Cavitat 22

23 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 When Defendants CAVTAT 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 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 CAVTAT and JONES 17 and believed them to be true. n 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 NNTH CAUSE OF ACTON (For Medical Negligence Against Defendants CONNEALY, SCMCNM and Does 26 through 30, inclusive) Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference all of the 26 allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 24 as though fully set forth herein 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

24 ..., 1 Defendants rendered professional medical services in the diagnosis, treatment and 2 care of Plaintiff 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 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 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 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 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

25 ', and continue to cause, Plaintiff great mental, physical and nervous pain and suffering. 2 Plaintiff will seek leave of Court to amend this complaint to set forth the full amount of 3 damage sustained as a result thereof when ascertained As a further proximate result of the negligence of Defendants, Plaintiff has 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 8 the full amount of damage sustained as a result thereof when ascertained As a further proximate result of the negligence of Defendants, Plaintiff has 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 12 the full amount of damage sustained as a result thereof when ascertained 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 15 nature and extent of which are currently unknown to Plaintiff. Plaintiff will seek leave 16 of Court to amend this complaint to set forth the full amount of damage sustained as 17 a result thereof when ascertained 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 ACTON 24 (For ntentional Misrepresentation Against Defendants 25 CONNEALY, SCMCNM and Does 26 through 30, inclusive) Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference all of the 27 allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 24 as though fully set forth herein On or about June 18, 2008, during Plaintiff's medical treatment, Defendant 25