Transcription

FILED12SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIACOUNTYOF ORANGECENTRALJUSTICE CENTERKeith A. Fink, Bar No. 146841S. Keven Steinberg, Bar No. 151372FiNK & STEINBERGALAN CARLSON, Clerk of the CourtAttorneys at Law345611500 Olympic Boulevard, Suite 316Los Angeles, California 90064Telephone: (310)268-0780Facsimile: (310) 268-0790BV:S HERRER4WLL2N. ,DEPUT’’Attorneys for PlaintiffALIREZA PANAIIPOUR, D.D.S,78SUPERIOR COURT OF TIlE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,n iiCOUNTY OF laintiff,))))))))))13v.14151617DAVID J. WJLZIG, an individual, JILLCRESAP, an individual; and DOES 1 through50, inclusive,Defendants.181920212425262728IARX KIRK H Na AMLJRA(!PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FORMALICIOUS PROSECUTION[JURY TRIAL DEMANDED]))PLAINTIFF ALIREZA PANAHPOUR, D.D.S. (“Plaintiff’ and/or “Dr. Panahpour”) herebyalleges as follows:222300 675 3 5 4CASENO.VENUE AND PARTIES1.PLAINTIFF ALIREZAPANAHPOUR, D.D.S. (“Plaintiff’ and/or”Dr. Panahpour”)is and at all times relevant hereto was an individual residing in the County of Los Angeles, State ofCalifornia.2.DEFENDANT DAVID J. WILZIG (“Wilzig” and/or “Defendant”) is and at all timesrelevant hereto was an individual residing in the County of Los Angeles, State of California,3.DEFENDANT JILL CRESAP (“Cresap” and/or Defendant”) is and at all timesCOMPLAINT FOR MALICIOUS PROSECUTION

12relevant hereto was au individual residing in the County of Los Angeles, State of California.4.Plaintiff is unaware of the true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate,3associate or otherwise, of Defendants DOES 1 through 50 (hereinafter “Does”), inclusive, and4therefore sues said Does by such fictitious names. Plaintiff will seek leave of Court to amend this5Complaint to show the true names and capacities of such Does when the same has been ascertained.6Plaintiffis informed, believes, arid thereupon alleges that each ofthe fictitiously named Defendants7are responsible to Plaintiff for the injuries suffered and alleged herein, and/or are subject to the8jurisdiction of the Court as a necessary party for the relief herein requested.95.Plaintiff is informed, believes, and thereupon alleges that each Doe is now, and was10at all times mentioned herein, the agent, principal, partner, joint venturer, employee or alter ego ofiithe remaining Defendants, and that all ofthe acts and conduct alleged herein were performed within12the course and scope and in the furtherance of such agency, partnership, joint venture, employment13or alter ego relationship.14156.Venue is properly laid in this Court in that the cause of action arose in theCounty of Orange.FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS16A.1718192021222324252627287.Dr. Panahpour ‘s Successful Dental PracticeDr. Panahpour is a highly successful dentist who promotes progressive ideas andmethods in dentistry, thus enriching and enlarging the confines ofconventional dentistry. He did hisundergraduate studies at the University ofCalifornia, Los Angeles, and obtained his degree ofDoctorof Dental Surgery at the nationally renowned University of the Pacific, Dugoni School of Dentistry.After graduating with the degree in dental surgery, Dr. Panahpour started his dental practice in 1994.In order to expand his integral approach to dentistry, Dr. Panahpour obtained further education atthe New York Academy of Medicine. Throughout his dental career, Dr. Panabpour has beenconstantly enriching his education at highly distmguished schools such as University of SouthernCalifornia, San Francisco Academy for Advanced Dental Education, and New York University.8.A pioneer in Systemic Dentistry, Dr. Panahpourspeeializes in state-of-the-artgeneraland esthetic dentistry. He uses an integrative approach to healing, which combines conventional and2COMPLAINT FOR MALiCIOUS PROSECUTION

1natural methods. Dr. Panahpour has successfully practiced dentistry iii the United States and abroad2for over 17 years. He is licensed to practice dentistry in the state of Washington and in California,3and maintains dental offices in Los Angeles and in Seattle. Dr. Panahpour’ s philosophy is to broaden4the narrow scope of dentistry to include such important considerations as how the patient’s oral5health affects his or her immune system, digestive system, structural and energetic alignment and6general well-being.79.Dr. Panahpour is a member of a variety of well-known and distinguished American8and international organizations such as the American Dental Association, California Dental9Association, Western Dental Society, the American Academy of Cosmetic Dentistry, International10Academy of Biological Dentistry and Medicihe, International College of Acupuncture and BlectroiiTherapeutics, and International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology. He has been a frequent12lecturer at the events organized by the Cancer Control Society and Academy of Neurology, as well13as at numerous other symposia and conferences nationwide. Dr. Panahpour has also been actively14involved in outreach programs and mission work in West and South Africa.1510.Due to his innovative approach to dentistry, Dr. Panahpour has been invited to a16number ofnational television and radio shows to share his vision and approach with the population17at large. He has extensively discussed Systemic Dentistry on the national TV program Joy In The18World, and has been as an expert guest to Good Morning Sacramento and other nation wide TV19broadcasting programs. Since 2003, Dr. Panahpour has been a repeated guest on The Aware Show,20a talk radio program focusing on self development in all areas of life, for healing and achievement.21He also is one of the experts on Systemic Dentistry in the video series created by Beyond Wisdom.22In addition, Dr. Panahpour has written numerous articles addressing the issues of a holistic approach23to dentistry as well as the dangers posed by amalgams containing mercury.B.242526272811.Dr. Panahpour’s Work at South Coast Medical Center for NewMedicine, and Dental Treatment of CresapIn or about April 2007, Dr. Panahpour began working as a dentist at South CoastMedical Center for New Medicine (“SCMCNM”) in the County of Orange. SCMCNM is ahealthcare provider which in addition to traditional dental and medical practice also providesalternative holistic medical practices.3COMPLAINT FOR MALICIOUS PROSECUTION

112.Cresapjoined SCMCNM on or about July 20, 2007 as Director of Administration.213.While working at SCMCNM, Cresap decided to use Dr. Panahpour’s dental services.3Cresap scheduled an appointment and saw Dr. Panahpour on or about August 14, 2007. Dr.4Panahpo’ur examined Cresap and recommended certain dental procedures. After a thorough dental5examination and review ofX-rays taken during the dental exam, Dr. Panahpour advised Cresap that6the crown on her tooth #3 had to be removed and replaced because the tooth #3 was decaying.7Similarly, Dr. Panahponr advised Cresap that X-rays indicated there was inflammation and apicalSicyst on her tooth #14 and due to that condition, the tooth had to be removed.91014.free of charge.C.11 121314 1516In or about April, 2008, Cresap was fired from SCMCNM for acts of dishonesty.16.Enraged at her termination by SCMCNM, Cresap decided to sue SCMCNM, andimmediately began looking for a lawyer who would take her case on a contingency fee basis. Cresapcould not find a single attorney in Orange County or Long Beach (where she lived) who would takeher case.17. The only lawyer that Cresap was able to find who would take her as a client wasDavid Wilzig, a solo practitioner in Century City.19B.2021Cresap Ls’ Fired From SCMCNMJor Acts ofDishonesty and Seeks aLawyer15.1718Treating Cresap as a colleague, Dr. Panahpour offered his dental services to Cresap18.Wilzig Devices a Scheme to Extort Money From SCMCNM and Dr.Panahpour Through Their Insurance CarriersAfter talldng to Cresap, Wilzig started devising a scheme to go after SCMCNM.22Wilzig knew that because Cresap was fired for committing acts of dishonesty, he could not sue23SCMCNM on any employment law claims. Learning from Cresap that she had received dental24treatment from Dr. Panahpour at SCMCNM, Wilzig came up with a serial shakedown scheme of25SCMCNM and Dr. Panahpour.2619.Wilzig knew that all medical centers, such as SCMCNM, and virtually all doctors27have medical malpractice insurance coverage ofmillions ofdollars. Wilzig was certain that he could28get blood money from SCMCNM’ sand Dr. Panahpour’ s insurance carriers merely by filing a lawsuit4COMPL4INT FOR MAUCIOUS PROSECUTION

1no matter how spuridus the allegations. Wilzig set forth to file a suit and make demands of the2carriers that were a fraction ofthe defense costs SCMCNM and Panahpour would have to pay. While3this method of extortion was not subtle, it was suceesstbl as SCMCNM made a nuisance settlement.E.4520.Wilzig’s History ofFabrication of Frivolous LawsuitsWilzig has a long history of suing dentists and extorting nuisance settlement money6from their malpractice insurance carriers. Utilizing a “cooky-cutter” template complaint for all his7clients, Wilzig demanded thousands of dollars to settle the lawsuits and quickly agreed to take aS 9.999 from a doctor defendant.g21.Significantly, Wilzig has been fabricating non-existing allegations and adding10innocent dentists-defendants to the lawsuits even against the will ofhis own clients. One ofWilzig’s11own clients, Barbel Nanjo, was so concerned by Wilzig’s acts that she felt compelled to publicly12announce that she did not authorize Wilzig to either add defendants (including Dr. Panahpour) or13allege what Wilzig did in the complaint filed on behalf of Barbel Nanjo. In her statement verified14by a notary public, Ms. Nanjo publicly declared that she neither requested nor authorized Wllzig to15file any lawsuit against Dr. Panahpour. Ms. Nanjo clearly stated that she never instructed Wilzig to16bring dental malpractice, medical malpractice, conspiracy to commit fraud and intentional17misrepresentation causes of action against Dr. Panahpour because she believed Dr. Panahpour did19not commit any of the acts alleged by Wilzig in the complaint filed on Ms. Nanjo ‘5 behalf. A true19and correct copy of Barbel Nanjo’s statement is attached hereto as Exhibit A.2022.On or about November 12, 2008, Cresap, with Wilzig’s assistance, filed a frivolous21lawsuit against Dr. Panahpour and SCMCN.M alleging eight causes of action, including dental22malpractice, lack of informed consent, medical battery, sexual battery, intentional and negligent23misrepresentation. Through Wilzig, Cresap alleged that Dr. Panahpour performed dental services24that were not necessary (i.e. Dr. Panahpour removed amalgams containing mercury and replaced25them with compositefillings), that Dr. Panahpour was negligent when he extracted Cresap’s tooth,26and that Dr. Panahpour injected her eyebrow, lip, both breasts (Cresap had scars from a breast27reduction done in 2000), abdomen, right knee, left foot, and lower back without her informed28consent.5COMPlAINT FOR MALICIOUS PROSECUTION

F.1223.34567S9101112131415161718192021Wilzig then decided to go even further: With Cresap’s assistance, Wilzig obtaineda list ofDr. Panahpour’s patients, and went after each ofthem in an attempt to convince them to sueDr. Panahpour and SCMCNM. True and correct copies of statements made by Dr. Panahpour’spatients regarding. Wilzig’s solicitation are attached hereto as Exhibit B.24.By contacting Dr. Panahpour’ s patients, Wilzig engaged in the unauthorized practiceof soliciting clients by calling Dr. Panahpour’s patients, which was not only a violation of theirprivacy rights, but also illegal practice in violation of Rule 1-400(C) of Caflfornia Rules ofProfessional Conduct which prohibits attorneys from soliciting business by contacting individualswith whom the attorney does not have a prior relationship.25.All of the above-described acts were designed to intimidate Dr. Panahpour to settleCresap’s absurd lawsuit. Moreover, the allegations concocted by Cresap and Wilzig against Dr.Panahpour were identical to those that Wilzig fabricated for Ms. Nanjo and for his numerous otherclients, and were devised with a sole purpose to shakedown money from Dr. Panahpour’s andSCMCNM’s insurance carriers.26.Cresap and Wilzig went as far in their scheme to pressure Dr. Panahpour to settle asto disseminate the false claims made in the action regarding Dr. Panahpour on the Internet.27.At this point, Dr. Panahpour became fed up with this continuous harassment byWilzig, and refused to capitulate to Wilzig’ s extortionist tactics. Dr. Panabpour instructed hisinsurance carrierNOT to settle the Cresap case although he knew that SCMCNM gave in to Wilzig’ sblackmailing and settled the case. Accordingly, the case went to trail.22G.2324Wilzig’s Chase for Dr. Panahpour’s Patients and Other Tactics toPressure Dr. Panahpour to Settle Cresap ‘s Absurd Lawsuit28.Cresap v. Panahpour Trial and Dr. Panahpour’s Decisive Victoty:Unanimous, 12-0, Jury Verdict in Favor ofDr. PanahpourAt trial, the expert witness Dr. Jay Grossman, plainly explained to the jury why the25accusations brought against Dr. Panahpour were absolutely unfounded. Dr. Grossman is a nationally26recognized expert in dentistry and as such maintains three licenees: California, Nevada and the27Northeast. He obtained his dental education at New York University wherehe also did his residency.28After his residency, Dr. Grossman joined the U.S. Navy where he worked for 2 years gaining a6COMPLAENT FOR MAUCIOU5 PROSECUTION

1plethora of experience. Upon completing his duty as a Lieutenant in the Dental Corp in 1991, Dr.2Grossman opened his own practice in Brentwood, California. In addition to being recognized as a3dentist of national significance, Dr. Grossman has been acknowledged for his philanthropic work4as the founder and executive director ofthe non-profit Homeless But Not Toothless, through which5Dr. Grossman has helped thousands of homeless and poor people providing them with free dental6services for over 20 years. Dr. Grossman’s activities have been covered by the national media, such7as Time and People magazines, and have been recognized through numerous awards.829.While the jury was watching the videotape of Dr. Panahpour’ s dental work on9Cresap’s tooth #14, Dr. Grossman described Dr. Panahpour’ s work as “aperfectly executed surgery”iostating “I can’t even pick one thing out that I would tell [Dr. Panahpourj to do differently.”Dr.11Grossman walked the jury through the videotape and the facts based on which he concluded that Dr.12Panahpour’s work as related to Cresap was not only within the standard of care, but well above that13standard, and that Dr. Panahpour took extra steps, which he was not required to take under the proper14standard of care, to ensure the best possible result. Dr. Grossman stated “[t]he procedure that [Dr.15Panahpourj does here, truthfully, is above the standard of care. The fact that he took out pieces and16did a pathology report, you don’t have to do that, not for a normal extraction, he did that. The fact17that he cleaned out the bone and put bone in it so it will heal quicker and fuller is also you don’t18have to do that. Those are extras. That’s no kidding, the Cadillac procedure for an extraction and aibony defect.” A true and correct copy ofthe excerpts from Dr. Grossman’s trial testimony is attached20hereto as Exhibit C.21—30.With respect to Cresap’s tooth #3, Dr. Grossman testified that what Dr. Panahpour22performed on that tooth, i.e. took out the existing crown to remove the decay on the tooth, was23absolutely within the standard of care. In fact, it would have been a breach of standard of care if Dr.24Panahpour did not do so.2531.Cresap’ s unfounded allegations also included assertions regarding lack ofinfonned26consent. However, not only did Cresap consent to all dental services provided by Dr. Panalipour, but27she herself requested all of them. Moreover, as the Director of Administration at SCMCNM, she28.was responsible for risk management, including ensuring that the proper protocol was in place for7COMPLAINT FOR MALICIOUS PROSECUTION

1obtaining informed cohsent from all patients. As such, Cresap was well informed about all matters2related to obtaining informed consent, and what it meant. She later conceded that she understood and3signed the informed consent form. Despite all of these facts, she disingenuously claimed that there4was lack of informed consent.32.5As to Cresap s ridiculous accusations of sexual battery, there were so many‘6discrepancies in her own testimony that it was apparent to the jury that she was falsifying facts. In7fact, post-trial polling ofjurors showed that they believed that Cresap made up the facts to allege hergsexual battery claim. For instance, Cresap conceded that she consented to neural therapy. She9requested it on her own because she knew exactly what the therapy was about. She also was10conscious during all dental procedures, and never objected to any procedure performed by Dr.iiPanahpour. Further, she never complained to anyone after Dr. Panahpour’s dental treatment that she12had been allegedly sexually battered by Dr. Panahpour. The jurors could see all the discrepancies13between these facts. While Wilzig and Cresap knew that there was no viable sexual battery cause14of action against Dr. Panahpour, they still brought this cause of action to put pressure on Dr.15Panahpour and gain leverage over him to force him to settle by first threatening to damage Dr.16Panahpour’ s reputation as a dentist and then forcing him to spend more money defending the type17of claims that cannot be disposed of.33.18The degree of absurdity of Cresap’s and Wilzig’s lawsuit is also indicated bythe19amount that they demanded the jury to award to Cresap. Wilzig asked the jury for 400,000.00 in20damages to be awarded to Cresap for her non-existent and frivolous claims.34.21Shortly after being presented with all evidence and testimony at trial, and after a very22short deliberation process, the jury returned a unanimous, 12-0, verdict in favor of Dr. Panahpour.23A true and correct copy of the verdict in the matter of Cresap v. Panahpour, Case No.30-2008-2400114601 is attached hereto as Exhibit U, Dr. Panahpour’ s decisive victory at trial on every single25claim demonstrated that Cresap’ s and Wilzig’ s entfre case was frivolous.26/27/128/18COMPLAINT FOR MAUCLOIJS FRO5ECUTION

1FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION2MALICIOUS PROSECUTION3(AGAINST DEFENDANTS WILJZIG AND CRESAP AND DOES 1-50)45635.Plaintiff repeats, re-alleges, and incorporates herein by reference as though set forthin full each and every allegation contained in Paragraphs 1 through 34, inclusive.36.Onor aboutNovember 12,2008, Defendants Wilzig and dresap wrongfullybrought7a lawsuit against Dr. Panahpour, despite knowing that the lawsuit against Dr. Panahpour was totallyafrivolous.910ii121337.In or about May 2010, ajury trial was held in the lawsuit brought by Cresap againstDr. Pa.nahpour wherein the jury returned a unanimous verdict in favor of Dr. Panahpour.38.No reasonable person in Defendants’ circumstances would have believedthat there were reasonable grounds to bring the lawsuit against Dr. Panahpour.39.Defendants acted primarily for a purpose other than succeeding on the merits of the14claims they made. Rather, their sole purpose was to tarnish Dr. Panahpour’s reputation and harm his15health, cause him damages.161740.As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, Dr. Panahpour incurreddamages and irreparable harm.1841.Defendants conduct was a substantial factor in causing Dr. Panahpour’s bann.1942.Defendants engaged in a premeditated scheme to tarnish and damage Dr.20Panahpour’s reputation by filing a frivolous and unfounded lawsuit against him. Defendants’21premeditated conduct in bringing a frivolous and unfounded lawsuit against Dr. Panahpour was22willful, oppressive and fraudulent in that they knew that there were no facts to support their23allegations. As a result of these and other actions, Plaintiffs are entitled to an award of punitive24damages.2526WHEREFORE Plaintiff Dr. Panahpour prays for judgment against Defendants as follows:1.accordance with proof at time of trial;2728For general and compensatory damages, including prejudgment interest, in2.For punitive damages in accordance with proof at time of trial;9COMPLAINT FOR MAUCTOU5 PROSECUTION

13.and23:67aFor costs;4.For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.DATED: May, 2011FIIERGBy:KeithA.1ikS. Keven,SteinbergAttorneys for PlaintiffALIREZA PANAHP OUR, PLAINT FOR MAUCOUS PROSECUTION

If

Fwd FYIPago I of 1Frotn: apanaddaoLcomTo! meowanfl3Iew.cOmSubJect Fwc: FYiDate: Thu,Jn 14,20104:29 pmthere U 90pana---0riginaI Message——From: Ranata Vinor [email protected] To: apanadthaoi.cornSent Thu. Jan 14, 2010 11:38 amSubject: FYIHi AllrezaYesterday morning (1/13110)1 received a call at my work # from David Wilzig, he left amessage with the office asst. not stating what the caP was regarding, but that he needed tochat with me. I was not familiar with his name or the nature of his business, however I returnedhis call on Thursday morning (1/1 4/1 0) to inquire. Once connected to David Wilzig, heinformed me that I did not know him, but he obtained my name via Dr. Alireza Panahpour, thengoogla searched my name to locate me at my work office. He proceeded to inform me that hewas an attorney for other parties involved in suing Dr. Panahpour. I informed him that I was notcomfortable continulny the conversation and that contrary to him; I hold Dr. Panahpour in high.regard and wish to end the call with no further discussion, Mr. WiIzig was polite and stated thathe understood my position. Thus concluded the brief call.best regards,Renata‘-.f/.1.,;1,‘J nf’flda1T/l/An 1/mi1/prjfltMeae,spx1/28/2010

Steven Greenrt 7 StreetGrover Beach CATo whom it may concern,I was.contacted by phone by David Wiizig who stated that he was an Attorney representing someonewho wadissatisf1ed wIth the dental care that they had received from Dr. Pana. He asked me severalquestions about the care that I received from Dr. Pana.He dId not give me any details about the problem that his client(s) had. I was not able to give him anynegative information about the care that 1 received since I was then and I am still very happy with thedental work that Dr. Pana performed.I seem to recall that Mr. Wilzig told me that he found my phone number on the Internet I have thisrecollection because I have been working on the Internet since 1995 and had always been ‘very carefulto prevent any personal information from being distributed on the Internet. To this day I can find nopersonal information for me on the internet.,22

ra Nanjo3201 College Place, Apt 162Lemon Grove, CA 91945-1464August 6,2007STAThMBNTI am making the following statement of my own free will, without coercion orundue influence. I wish to provide this statement to a list consisting of: Cavitat MedicalTechnologies, mc, its owner Robert J, tones, and the following dentists: ChristopherHussar, D.D.S., Wesley Shanldand, II, D.D.S., Alireza Panahpour, DflS and JerryBouquot, 0.1)5.1 will refer to these six parties as “the listed parties.” The listed partiesare among the defendants named in a complaint that has been originally filed on mybehalf (I am the plaintiff), in the Superior Court of the State of California For the Countyof Los Angeles. The California case No was SC 089051. It is my belief that case againstCavitat, Robert Jones, Hussar and Shankland has been withdrawn from the CaliforniaSuperior Court and reified in a federel court in Nevada. The attorney representing me inthese matters, and in drawing up the complaint, has been David J. Wllzig, ofthe LawOffices of David 3. WilnIg.1 hereby state that I did not wish, and do not, wish to include the listed parties inmy legal complaint and I did not) and do not, ask my attorney, David Wilzig, to name thelisted parties in the complaints referenced above. I do not know RobertS. (“Bob”) Jonesand I have no complaint against Robert S. Jones or his company, Cavitat MedicalTechnologies, Inc. Further, 1 have no oornplaint against the listed dentists, namelyHussar, Shankland, Panahpour, and Bouquet.1 do not know why David Wilzig, as my attorney, added the listed parties to thecomplaint brought on my behalf; I do not know why ho brought allegations of DentalMalpractice, Medical Malpractice1 Conspiracy to Commit Fraud and IntentionalMisrepresentation, since he was not inatnicted to do so by me and, in my view, they havenot done the things that they were and are being charged with in the ooinplaint. I haveverbally indicated such to Mr.Wilzig but, so far, he has been unresponsive to my wisheson this matter. That is why lam hereby notifying the parties on the list, as well asattorney David Wilzig, arid Leo Cashman, of the non-profit group DAMS. I havedisenssed these matters with Leo Cashniart, who will assist me in reaching the listedparties and providing them this statement.I need to be properly and accurately represented by my legal counsel inacoordanoe with my wishes and intents and in adeordance with my instructions.Copies of this statement are being provided to: Wesley Shankland, EU, 005;Christopher Hussar, DOS; Alireza Panahpour, DOS, Jerry Bouquet, DOS; David Wilnig,3D; and to Leo Cashnian, who is assisting me in contacting the other parties.Slats ol CaliloralantsruucaNanjoOounty of.nrIot.rJ1,LOn ‘4I P. ‘7. p0113. (dew). bolore meO3ttE.L1r,,.rwth.)(name end tUe14oary PuWlc), pereondy oppeecad‘fnnrna(p3 ci algnedj)), personallykj Riblown In see (Oc ptvad So me on ho beats ci eallelaclmy Getheca) Ic ho inc parecn() whose cane(s) b/er.mtaojibed is the edIhin knefrunwnf end ashneMedged I, me Thai hethhoflhey ececuled the same bi th)eThathhalr7,ansuthudned eapeollyQed), end hat by bbftserllhalr ulgrahxcf.e) ‘a the hectrumens as pernonta).hehuilafwhkhthaperona(e)eolad e,cculedthabeluumenl.C—or inn nIfty uponwNaramflaMonnledaler’j flignelure at Nolmy(5eeQNolqeyf”Mco -Cakomçjscnm.gocounfrMyCOmmBqm.Msv1,

II

1000ISANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA2-TUESDAY, NAY 11, 2010MORNING SESSION345(The following proceedings were hadin the presence of the jury.)6THE COURT:7 clients are present.We’re back on the record.Counsel andThe jury is assembled.8We left, off with the defense case, are there9 any further witnesses or evidence from the defense.10MR. LOWARY:Yes, your Honor.Dr. Panahpour calls11 Dr. Jay Grossman.12THE CLERK:Please stand right here and raise your13 right hand to be sworn.14You do solemnly state that the testimony you15 are about to give in the matter shall be the truth, the16 whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God.17THE WITNESS: I do. Good morning, your Honor.18THE BAILIFF: State your full name and spell it19 for the record.20THE WITNESS:Jay Grossman, G-r-o-s-s-m-a-n.Jay.2122JAY GROSSMAN,23 called as a witness on behalf of the Defense, having been24 first duly sworn, testified as follows:25 /1/1/26 /1/1/

1049I sticks it into the bone and releases his hand, and you2 could actually see the instrument sticking in soft bone.3Is that good to stick in soft bone or bad?Q.4A.7A.Well, it’s horrible if the bone is soft. It’s5 brilliant that he was able to diagnose this and treat.6(Video playing.)So he’s pushing on the bone.8 the buccal.Look at that.Hard as a rock onHe let go of the instrument.9 It’s stuck in the bone; it’s that soft.10It’s like a dart in the dart board?0.11A.Dart board,12 how soft that is.Now, he’s pulling outIt’s flaking off.--did you seeSo this is dead bone13 or what we call necrotic bone.14It’s certainly within the standard of care,15 Doctor, that while you’re at or near an adjacent toàth, to16 remove what you consider to be adverse pathology nearby?17A.Absolutely. It certainly made sense. There’s0.18 only one tooth separating these, so to do the procedure at19 one time saves the patient from a second surgery.200.22A.I apologize for the blood, but this is, in fact,21 the procedure; true?That is. the procedure.23 very little bleeding.In fact, there’s very,He did a great job with controlling24 the bleeding.25I actually had a concern about showing this to26 the jury because, you know, people don’t like to go to the

1050I dentist to begin with, and now we’re watching an oral2 surgery procedure. You know, I live here, so obviously3 it’syou know, doesn’t turn my stomach, so I certainly--4 hope that’s not5--that doesn’t sit with you wrongly.But, again, this is a perfectly executed6 surgery.Like I can’t even pick one thing out that I7 would tell him to do differently.8So now he’s using what looks like a rongeur.9 It’s a specific instrument that actually pulls out pieces10 of tooth.11Now, he’s taking pieces out.He’s putting it12 into a container to actually have a pathology report done13 on it.14Q.So he’s still at 16; true?15A.Still at 16.16Q.What’s he doing there?17A.He’s either putting an antibiotic in or some sort18 of bone to fill the hole.19By the way, a few other accolades, if I may.20 First of all, I don’t know Dr. Pana. I met him this21 morning the first time.The procedure that he does here,22 truthfully, is above the standard of care.23The fact that he took pieces out and did a24 pathology report, you don’t have to do that, not for a25 normal extraction. He did that.26The fact that he cleaned out the bone and put

1051I bone in it so it will heal quicker and fuller is also2 you don’t have to do that. Those are extras.3That’s, no kidding, the Cadillac procedure for4 an extraction and a bony defect,5Q.7A.Correct.8Q.9A.And then we’re left with, what, three roots?Three roots, correct.10Q.I think we’ve now gotten to the portion, Doctor,6 where the crown has been removed?That’s the way you want to do it; right?11A.That’s a phenomenal way to do it.

1 natural methods. Dr. Panahpour has successfully practiced dentistry iii the United States and abroad 2 for over 17 years. He is licensed to practice dentistry inthe state of Washington and California, 3 and maintains dental offices inLos Angeles and Seattle. Dr. Panahpour’ s philosophy is to broaden 4 the narrow scope of de