Transcription

DAVIDJ. WILZIG(CSBN56232)LAWOFFICESOF DAVIDJ. WILZIG2 A ProfessionalCoq: orationFILEDSUPERIORCGU.RTOf CALIFORNIACCUNTVOF 0 /CENTRALJUSTICECEn /NOV24 20091801CenturyParkEastJ.Suite22003 Los Ang elesCalifomie 0067Tel. (3f0} 286-1188Fax (310)286-271145 Attorneyfor PlaintiffsARDISMOHRSCHLADTand6 HENRVMOHRSCHLADi7SUPERIORCOURTOFTHE STATEOF CALIFORNIA8FOR THE COUNTYOF ORANGE")1011 .ARDISMOHRSCHLAOTandCase 31COMPLAINTFOR DAMAGES:vs.1.2.3.4. . . -,,i1NegligentHiring/RetentionMe licalMalpracticeLackof InformedConsentIntentionalMisrepresentation5. NegligentMisrepresentation8. Intentional Misrepresentation7. Negligent Misrepresentation8. Negligence209. Intentional Mlsrepresenta·tton10. ConsP.iracY.to Commit Fraud11. Dental Negligence12. Lack of Informed Consent13, Battery2116. lntentlonal Misrepresentation\2217. Loss of Consortium; inclusive,1914. Sexual Batte 18. NegligentMisrepresentationJUDGE JAMOAA. fv10BERLYOEP1.C122324I25 and alleges as follows:26271COME NOW Plaintiffs ARDIS MOHRSCHLADT and HENRY MOHRSCHL.ADT \PARTIES1.Defendant ALIREZA PANAHPOUR, D.D.S. (hereinafter referred to as128 "PANA")is, and at all times herein mentionedwas, a dentist licensed to practice 1ComplaintforDamages

-1-dentistry by the State of California, holding license #41661. with his principal place of., business at 6 Hughes Avem1e, Sulte 100., Irvine, California 92618 and 1 at all times3 herein mentioned, was practiclng biological dentistry as an independent contractor4 .retained by the SOUTH COAST MEDICAL CENTER FOR NEW MEDICINE, INC., akas CENTER FOR NEW MEDICINE. During the time of Plaintiffs dental treatment, .and6 unbeknownst to her, Defendant PANA was on probation with the DENTAL BOARD OF7 CALIFORNIA pursuant to a Stipulated Settlement and Oi-sciplinary Order, the content8 of which is described herein, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit ''1'' and9 incorporated herein by reference.IO2, Defend nt SOUTH COASr MEDICAL CENTER FOR NEW MEDICINE, INC.,11aka CENTER FOR NEW MEDICINE, a California corporation (hereinafter re'ferred to12 as "SCMCNM ) is, and at all times herein mentioned was, a medical/dental facility13 registered to do and doing business in the State of California with its principal place of14 business located at 6 Hughes Avenue, Suite 100, Irvine, California 92618.153Defendant LEIGH ERIN CONNEALY. M.D. (hereinafter referred to as16 "CONNEALY") is, and at all times herein mentioned was., a physician licensed to17 practice medicine by the State of Caljfornia, holding license #G57433, and the medical18 director and co-owner of SCMCNM 1 with her principal place of business located at 6.J920.Hughes Avenue, Suite 100 1 Irvine, California 92618.4. Defendant STEPHANIE MASON, M.D. (hereinafter referred to as "MASON") ·11 is, and at all times herein mentioned was, a physician licensed to practice medicine by22 the State of California, holding license #C50234, with her principal place of business·23 located at 6 Hughes Avenue, Suite 100, Irvine, California 92618.245. Defendant ANGELA MILLER, M.D. (hereinafter referred to as "MILLER") is 125 and at all times herein mentioned was, a physician licensed to practice medicine by the26. State of California, holding license #A72109, with her principal place of business. at all27 times relevant herein, on the premises of SCMCNM in its Tustin and lrvfne·, California28 locations.2Cnmplain! for Damag s.

10. Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities, whethe1r individual,2 cor'porate, associate or otherwise, of defendants sued herein as DOES 1 through 50,Jinclusive, and therefore sues said defendants by such fictitious names,, Plaintiff is4 informed and oelieves, and upon such information and belief, alleges tha'lr each of thes defendants' designated herein as a DOE is legally responsible i'n some manner for the6 events and happenings referred to here.fn and caused the damages proximatelyth·ereby7 to Plaintiff as hereinafter alleged. Plaintiff will seek leave of court to amend this8 Complaint to show the true names and capacities of the defendants designated herein9 as DOES when the same have been ascertained.STATEMENT OF FACTS101111. On or about December 19, 2006, Defendant PANA entered into a Stipulated12 Settlement and Disciplinary Order with the Dental Board of Californ ia, wH,ereln PANAJ J agreed that ·the Dental Board coU.ld establish a basis for the allegations made in its14 Accusation No. DSC 2004-72 against PANA of incompetence, gross negligence,15repeated acts of negligence, false. fraudulent or misleading statements, and16 unprofessional conduct.1712. 111 or about 2003, PlaintJff ARDIS MOHRSCHLADT (hereinafteir referred to1 as ) ARDIS") initially sought treatment with SCMCNM for hormone replacement therapy19 with SCMCNM Defendant MILLER, Thereafter and In or about 2005, Defendant20 MILLER recommended that Plaintiff undergo an LSA test for heavy metal toxicity.21ARDIS was advised that the results of that testing revealed heavy meted toxicity for22 which Defen ant MILLER referred ARDIS to fellow SCMCNM staff physicfan, DefendantLl MASON, who recommended chelation therapy, a process by which chelating agents are24 administered to a patient to allegedly remove heavy metals from the body.2513. Defendant MASON refused to commence chelation therapy until all of ARDIS'26 amalgam fillings had been removed and in or about November 2005 through February27 2006, ARDIS sought treatment with a general dentist referred to her b'I DefendantI28 MILLER who removed 19 amalgam fillings and replaced each filllng with cl composite,4Cornptalnt for Damages

.,, ,even though ARDlS had not experiencedany symptomsassociatedwith r1eavymetaltOXICI'ty'314. On or about August 5, 2005, DefendantMILLER convinced ARDIS that herVI4 ongoing physical complaints of fatigue, stress, difficulty sleeping. headaches, sore5 throat, stiff neck, shoulder pain and generalmalaise were a result of contil1uedheavy6 metal toxicitywhich the removalof ARDIS's amalgamfillings did not abate. To confirm7DefendantMILLER's diagnosis, DefendantMASON ordered the collection of a urine8 specimenfromARDIS whichwas accomplishedafter the administrationof a provoking9 agent, a compoundadministeredwhich attacheslo lead, cadmium, mercury and other1o mo1eculesin the blood forcingthem to be excreted in a patient's urine.1115. On or about August 10, 2005, ARDIS's urine specimen was sent to12 Defendant 111- which performed a urine toxic metal ;'' test andCl13 determined in its August 12, 2005 report that ARDIS' level of cadmium was Mvery14 elevated"and her levels of lead and nickel were .etevated" The report gcmeratedby15 Defendant pinedthat .no safe referencelevelsfor toxic metalshad16 been established".1716.The results of theII IDFreport and other testing and18 examinationundertakenat SCMCNMallegedlyconfirmedthe diagnosis o·fSCMCNM19 doctors that ARDIS' continuing physical complaints resulted from h13avymetal20 poisontng.2117. Onabout November15,2006, DefendantMASONcommencedchelation22 therapy. At DefendantMASON1s directionand underher supervision.chela1liontherapy23 was performed on ARDIS by SCMCNM medical staff using EDTA as the Chelating24 agent on November301t1,December61h, and December12,2006,January 16th, May4u,.25 June 13'\ and December1o.2007. December2, 2008 and January22 nd , Jc:muary23rd ,26 January26"\ and January 28, 2009.2718. Duringthat time frame, and on or about December7, 2007, October 24 th and28 fS after the administration5ComplaintfarDamager

, ,, 1of a provoking agent and the specimens sent to Defendant2analysis.34for19. On or about December18. 2007.October30, 2008 and December6, 2008,Defendant ----completed Its analyses and generated reports which115 determined that ARDIS had 1'elevated'' and nvery elevated levels of several toxic6metals,including cadmiumand lead.120. The findingsof Defendanta sreports and the Independent8 medical analyses and diagnoses of Defendants SCMCNM, MILLERand MASON9Induced said Defendants to continue performing chelation therapy on ARDIS asIo describedherein.1121. On or about November20, 2007, and based upon e-mails, brochures and12 flyers distributed by DefendantsCONNEALYand SCMCNMIARDIS consulted with13 DefendantPANA for treatment of her complaintsof jaw pain which Defendant PANA14 assuredARDIS he could correct.1522. At the time of ARDIS' initial examinationon November20, 2007, Defendant116 PANAperformeda dentalexamination,tooka seriesof intraoralx-rays, cleanedARDIS, 7 teeth, undertook an occlusion analysis and made diagnostic casts for crown18 replacement. DefendantPANAconfirmedthe diagnosisof heavy metal poisoningand1 representedto ARDIS that the mercuryallegedlyfound in her system was toxic and20 detrimentalto her health.2123. At her initial consultationon November20, 2007, DefendantPANA further22 represented to ARDIS that her amalgamfillings had been replaced with a sub-par23 substanceand that all 19 fillings had to be taken out and replaced again with a resin24based compositeof alleged higher quality Basedon DefendantPANA's advisement25 and recommendation.ARDIS agreed to have the 19 "plastic" fiHingsremoved and26 replacedwith resin-basedcompositefillings.2724. Further at her initial consultationon November20, 2007, DefendantPANA28 representedto ARDIS that all of her crowns required removal and replacement,an6ComplaintforDamages

.,,. opinion later corroboratedby DefendantMASONbased on the results of continuing2 heavymetaltoxicitywhich had not beenabatedby the chelation therapyperformedby3 DefendantMASON. Based on the adV1sementof Defendants PANA and MASON,4sARDISagreedto have the recommendedcrownwork performed.25. On or about December17, 2007, in preparationfor crown replacementon6 teeth #'s 2 and 3, DefendantPANAremovedARDIS' crowns and performedprepatory7 workfor newporcelain/ceramiccrowns,as well as instructingARDISregardingmercury8 detoxificationpreventionbasedon PANA'sconsultationwith DefendantsCONNEALY,910and MASONand his reviewof Defendant 26. Onreports.abou1December28, 2007, DefendantPANA with the assistanceofLla staff member,conductedART (autonomicresponsetesting).whereinhe placeda via!l2of plastic materialon ARDIS' breastboneand while touching ARDIS' body below theL3 jawlineJhad his assistant pull on his fingersto determinewhether the materialwhichl4comprisedARDIS'fillingswas detrimentalto her system. Byusingthis testing method,15 DefendantPANA diagnosedthat the compositematerial in all of ARDIS' filHngswas16 toxic and recommendedthat all of ARDIS' fillings be replaced with resin-based17 composite fiHings, Upon DefendantPANA's recommendationand advisement,the18 fillings in ARDIS' teeth #'s 11, 12 and 13 were replacedwith resin-basedcompositel 9 fillingsand,furtherupon PANA'srecommendationand advisement,a permanentcrown20 on ARDIS' tooth #14 was removed and the site prepared for the placement of a21 porcelain/ceramiccrown.2227.On or about January 15, 2008, Defendant PANA performed occlusal23 adjustmentson ARDIS' temporarycrowns,as well as performingan adjustmentto the24 orthodicappliancewhich had beendeliveredto ARDIS on Januarya1t1for treatmentof25 ARDIS'TMJ compJaintsas diagnosedby DefendantPANA. Al the same appointment,26 DefendantPANAremovedthe fillingson ARDIS'teeth #'s 5 and 20 and replacedthem27with resin-basedcompositefillings and removedexisting crowns on ARDIS' teeth #'s28 2 and 3.7ComplaintforDamages

28. On or about JanLtary 24, 2008 i Defendant PANA placed permanent crowns2 and onlays on teeth #1s 14 and 15, however, the permanent crown on tooth1 #14 was ill3 fitting and caused ARDlS intense pain so it was immediately removed and replaced with .4 another temporary crown.;29. On several occasions in March and April 2008 1 Defendant PANA made6 occlusal adjustments to ARDIS' temporary crowns, to h r permanent crowns and her7 orthodic appliance so as to "equilize" (sic) ARDIS' bite. Rather than equall iing her bite,8PANA's drilling completely flattened ARDIS' permanent crowns and destroyed her bite.930. On or about Apr\17, 2008, Defendant PANA (en,oved the temporary crown10 which had been placed on ARDIS' tooth #14 and replaced it with a ire-designedlt1213permanent crown. At th.e same appo1ntment, Defendant PANA adjusted ARDIS' bite31.On or about April 10, 2008 1 Defendant PANA again conduc1ed ART(autonomic response testin9), on this occasion placing different supplemenlts on ARDIS'14 chest to determine which supplements to prescribe to ARDIS and determining, by this15testing and the strength of the finger pulls of his assistant, the mc,st effective16 supplements for treatment of ARDIS' complaints which he recommended to ARDIS and17 which 1 upon Defendant PANA's recommendations, ARDIS purchased.1832, On or about April 1'5, 2008, Defendant PANA removed the go,ld crown on19 ARDIS' tooth #19 which had long been in place and replaced it with a temp1: rary crown.202133, On or about May 20, 2008, Defendant PANA removed the temporary crownon ARDIS1 -#19 and replaced it with a perrna nent porcelain/ceramic crown.2234. From April through October 2008. ARDIS treated with Defendant PANA on23a weekly basis, at which appointments Defendant PANA made occlusal ad;justments to24 ARDIS' remaining temporary crowns, permanent crowns and permanent anlays.2535. At the majority of ARDIS 1 multiple appointments with Defendant PANA26 between April and October 2008. including but n ot limited to October 29th , Defendant27 PANA represented to ARDIS that the presence of scars on ARDIS' b0dy prevented her28 from t,eallng, a condition Which could .only be alleviated if the scars were treated with8Complaint for Damages

-neural therapy. On those occasions, Defendant PANA performed neural therapy by2 administering injections with a foreign substance, possibly procaine, to ARDIS' jaw area3 surrounding teeth #'s 30 and 31, the ''OHIC'' area. a scar in the lymph area on the4 underside of ARDIS' chin, a scar on her right knee, and/or a scar on one of her toes.536. In or about the late summer of 2008, Defendant PANA purported to render6 psychological counseling to ARDIS, taking her hands while administering neural therapy7 to her right knee and advising her of wnat to say to her husband in order for him to take8 responsibility for his own medical condition and, by so doing, alleviate the stress on9 ARDIS that Defendani PANA stated was causing some of her complaints of severe painIo and discomfort in her mouth, teeth and jaw.1137. Further, in or about the summer of 200'8, Defendant PANA offered to give ,.12 ARDIS "a really good foot massage" in order to alleviate the stress and pain she wasl3 experiencing in her jaw, neck and head.1438. From November 2008 through January 2009, Defendant PANA removed all15 permanent crowns and onlays from ARDIS' teeth #'s 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 (all lower left)16 back teeth) and teeth # s 28, 29, 30. 31 and 32 (all lower right back teeth), drilled the17 teeth down and replaced them with temporary crowns which Defendant PANA promised1 & would permanently align her teeth and correct her bite forever, but which were poorly19 designed and so ill-fitting that ARDIS could not wear her orthodic appliance, thereby 20 causingher to suffer escalated muscle spasms, pain and tension.2139. On or about January 2009, after Defendant PANA had made multiple22 occlusal adjustments to the ten teeth on which he had placed temporary crowns, PANA23 placed two zirconium crowns covering five teeth each which did not fit on either side of24 ARDIS' mouth and which required reconfiguration. In the interim before the permanent25 crowns were delivered, Defendant PANA drilled large holes between the replaced26 temporary crowns to allegedly prevent infection and decay.2740. At multiple appointments during ARDIS' dental treatment with Defendant28 PANA when a painkiller, possibly novacain, was to be administered during a dental.9Complalril fol Damages-- -

-procedure, Defendant PANA. With the assistance of a staff member, utilized ART by2 placing novacain on ARDIS' chest and relying upon finger strength between himself and1 his assistant to determine how much painkiller to administer to Plaintiff.441. In or about March 30, 2009, ARDIS sought a second opinion of her dentals condition due to her ongoing and unresolved complaints and continuing intense pain6 and discomfort. ARDIS was advised th at she would requir.e extensive remedial dental1work, includfng but not limited to the replacement of all defective temporary and8 permanent crowns and permanent onlays and potential root canal treatmeht. due to the9 sub standatd dental treatment performed by Defendant PANA, including but not limitedl O to. improper occlusal adjustments (resulting in a flattening of ARDIS' teeth), infection11caused by improper build-up beneath ARDIS' crowns and onlays and the improperJ2 design and placement of ill fitting crowns and o. nlays.1342. As of November 2009, ARDIS' residual complaints as a result of the dentall 4 treatment performed by Defendants PANA and SCMCN M had not resolved and Plaintiff15 oonttnues 'to suffer from intense mouth, teeth and jaw pain, hot and cold sensitivity,16 sleep interruption Que to pain and biting inside of her mouth, improper jaw alignmentl 7 and lhfection.JR43, On or about May 5, 2008, Plafntiff HENRY MOHRSCHLADT (hereinafter19 referred to as "HENRY"), then a survivor of prostate cancer, initially sought treatment20 With SCMCNM for the advertised health benefits ofSCMCNM's medical practice. From21May 5, 2008 through May 6, 2009, and specifically after HENRY's diagnosis of non ·22 Hodgkin's l'ymphoma in August of 2008, Defendants CONNEALY and MASON worked23together ih recommending and treating HENRY with nutritional counseling and24 detoxification in order to rid his body of alleged poisons.2544. On or about May S f 2008 and on or about June 6 1 2008, Defendant MASON26 performed comprehensive examinations of HENRY and discussed with him her,about high levels of mercury toxicity.21 concerns2845. On or about June ·10, 2008, Defendant MASON ordered a CV profile for10Complaint for Damage

12episodes of high blood pressure HENRY had experienced in April of 2008.46. On or about June 24, 2008, Defendant CONNEALY performed yet anotheri3 comprehehslve examination in conjunction with her nutr tionalcounseling to determine4 which supplements should be sold to HENRY and also performed a LSA organ test to5 test for heavy metal toxicity.647, As a result of the several comprehensive examJnations performed by7Defendants MASON AND CONNEALY in May and June of 2008, Defendants8 recommended to and advised HENRY that his medical condition would be enhanced9by IV immune support therapy. Based on Defendants' recommendations. HENRY1 o agreed to svch a treatment regime and undeiwent IV immune therapy on October 20 1ri ,1I12October 27th December 9, 2008 and Jam.iary 2, 2009. 1 6', and48. On or about July 9th , August 21 st August 26, August 31 8', October113 December 1 O. 2008, Defendant CONNEALY provided HENRY with nutritional 14 counseling recommended to improve his medical condition, At each of HENRY's15 nutritional counseling sessions, he was persuaded to, and did, purchase multiple16 supplements to ostensibly improve. his health.1749.During the term of HENRY's treatment with Defendants CONNEALY,18 MASON and SCMCNM, Defendants performed numerous expensive diagnostic tests,19 including a LSA organ test {June 24, 2008), CBC/lymph plan (July 14, 2008), parasite20 testing (May 6 1 2009) and, on two separate occasions (August 5111 and October 20,21 2008), an MSA analysis.2250. Based 011 HENRY's prior medical history and their analyses of HENRY's23 condition, Defendants CONNEALY and MASON made a diagnosis of mercury toxicity24 and recommended chelation therapy, Based on Defendants' advisements as to the25 high levels of mercury in his body, HENRY .agreed to cnelation therapy and at26 Defendant MASON's direction and under her supervision, chelation therapy was'27 performed on HENRY by SCMCNM medical staff using EDTA as the chelating agent .28 on January 23, 2009 and February 2, 2009.11C.ompfainf for Damages

--51. During the term of HENRY's treatment by Defendants CONNEALY and2 MASON, Defendant CONNEALY performed intermittent examinations and provided3 comprehensive services to HENRY on October 7, 2008. December 11, 2008, March 3,4 2009, March 27, 2009 and April 6, 2009.52.onor about May 5, 2008, the day HENRY initially sought treatment at6 SCMCNM, he was referred to and examined by Defendant PANA In SCMCNM's dental, divjsfon, at which time, PANA not only pertormed a comprehensive oral examination.8 but took a series of intraoral x-rays. At the time of H ENRY's initial consultation with9 Defendant PANA, he had no complaints of moIJth or jaw pain and hfs only dentallO complaint was nocturnal teeth grinding.1153, On or about May 14, 2008, Defendant PANA took further x rays and12 discussed with HENRY the necessity for crowns on several of his teeth due to the fact13 that areas of prior teeth extractions and root canal treatment were dec ayed and14 infected.1554. On or about May 20, 2008, Defendant PANA recommended the removal ofJ 6 HENRY's amalgam fillings due to mercury poisoning and their replacement with. resin17 based composite fillings.1855. On or about May 28, 2008, in anticipatron of crown replacement on teeth #'s1912 anu. 18, Defendant PANA p.erformsd prepatory vvorK for new porcelain/ceramic20 crowns and placed temporary crowns.2156. On or about May 29, 2008, Defenda nt PANA prepared the site of tooth #1322 for the placement of a permanent porcelain/ceramic crown and placed a23porcelain/ceramic onlay on tooth #15.2457. On or about June 11, 2008, Defendant PANA performed prepatory work and25placed a temporary crown on tooth #5. At the same appointment, PANA advised26 HENRY that the previously performed root canal treatment on tooth #4 was defective,27 that the area surrounding tooth #4 was infected and recommended the extraction of2s· tooth '#4. Upon De1endant PANA's recommendation and advisement, dental surgery12Complaint for Damages

was performed to extract tooth #4.258. On or about June 13, 2008, Defendant PANA re-cemented tn,e temporary3crown on HENRY's tooth #18which had become loose and again, on or ab,:: utJune 16,4 2008, rercemented the temporary crowh oh tooth #18 due to its unstable nature evensthough It had been re-cemented once.59. On or about June 18, 2008, HENRY 1 s sutures from the dental surgery on67 tooth #4 were removed by PANA860. On or about June 23. 2008, Defendant PANA placed the permanent onlay9 on tooth #18.JO61. On or about July 21, 2008 1 Defendant PANA cleaned HENRY's Ueeth, placed11a temporary bridge over extracted tooth #4 and placed permanent crowns on teeth #3l2 and #5.1362. On or about August 5, 2008, Defendant PANA's dental records reflect that14 he removed amalgam fillmgs from HEN RY's teeth #s 29 and 30 and replacc3d them with15 · resin·based composite fillings. PANA's dental records further reflect that he removed16 permanent crowns he diagnosed as defectfve from teeth #1s 2.9 and 31 arnd performed17 prepatory work and placed temporary crowns on teeth #'s 29. 30 and 1. PANA's1 records reflect that he performed and billed for dental work on tooth #29 -- fillings and19 crown work-which would be physically .impossible to have aocomplisheo c,n that same20 date.2163. On or about August 26, 2008, Defendant PANA delivered a modified bridge·22 necessitated by the improper fit of a prior initial bridge placed over extrac:ted tooth #423 ·slte.2464. On or about November 24. 2008, Defendant PANA removed th,e temporary'25 crowns on teeth #'s 30 and 31 and replaced them with permanent crowns·. Tooth #2926 required a new impression for a permanent crown necessitated by the fact thai the27 temporary crown did not fit.2865 On or about January 12, 2009, Defenda11t PANA delivered and placed a13Complaint for Damages

- ,,76. At all times herein mentioned, DefendantsSCMCNM and CONNEALY had.2 a duty to the patients of SCMCNM, including Plaintiffs, to hire and retain cornpeter1t.3 exp.erienced and qualified professional staff, including the dentists who worked unoer4 the auspices of SCMCNM. 577. Pl'aintiffs are informed and believe and ther&oh aHeg·e that Defendants.,.6 SCMCNM and CONNEALY knew, or in the exercise of reasonable dilig,ence, including7 but not li'mi1ed to investigation of Defendant PANNs licensure status, should have ·,8,.known that PANA was unfit and incompetent to perform the duties for which he wasthat an undue risk9 hired and/or retained. namely professional dental services, and' to .hiring and/or retention.10 patients, including Plaintiffs, would exist as a result of PANA's11.78, Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege thaf Defendants,,12 SCMCNM and CONNEALY knew, or in the exercise of rea onablediligence, includingl3 investigationInto PANA;s prior litigation history, should have known that, In multiple 14lawsuits, ·allegations of Me.dicare fraud, sexual battery In touching intimate parts ofJ5 female patier,(s' bodies anr;l other acts of unprofessional conduct had been made. 5th Amendment .right against16 against PANA to some of which PANA had asserted .his17 self-incrimination and, based the-reon, PANA was unfit and incompetent to perform the18 duties for which he was hired and/or retained, .namely professjon I dental ervices, and19 that an undue risk to patients, including Plaintiffs, would exist as a result of PANA's20 hiring and/or retention.2179. Despite this advance knowl'ed·ge, Qefenda.nts SCMCNM and CONNEALY22 breached their duty of care to the pa1ients o'f SCMCNM, including Plaintiffs, by retaining., performing,professional dentaJ services,23 Defendant PANA as an independent contractor.24 as such retention w.as in conscious disregard of the rights and safety of SCMCNM's2s patients, ,ncll.Jding Plaintiffs, qS PANA had been disciplined and placed on probation by26 the DENTAL BOARD OF CALIFORNIA for gross incompetence and repeatedacts of'27 rtegligence in the performance of professional dental services.2880. During Ms probationary penod, the California Dental Board made quarterly16CompJaini for Damage

--investigative vtsits 10 Defendant SCMCNM's INine offices to report on Defendant2PANA's dental practice. Despite knowledge of the California Dental Board's continuingJmonitoring of Defendant PANA, Defendants SCMCNM and CONNEALY breached their4 dlJty of care to patients of SCMCNM, including Plaintiffs, by continuing to retain PANAs as an independent contractor performing dental services and further failing to advise6 patients of PANA that he was serving a prooaHon imposed by the California Dental7Board for gross incompetence and repeated acts of negligence in the pe1iormance of8 professional dental services,981. As a proximate result of the wrongful conduct of Defendants SCMCNM androCONNEALY, Plaintiffs were induced to undergo unwarranted and unnece·ssary dental1,treatment.1282.As a further proximate result of the wrongful conduct of Defendants13SCMCNM and CONNEALY, Plaintiffs have sustained injury to their health, strength and14activity, all of which injuries have caused, and continue to cause, Plaintiffs ireat mental,1 s physical and nervous pain and suffering. Plaintiffs will seek leave of Court to amend16 this complaint to set forth the full amour,t of damage sustained as a result thereof when17 ascertained.1883.As a further proximate result of the wrongful conduct of Defendants19 SCMCNM and CONNEALY, Plaintiffs hav sustained, and will continui3 to sustain,20disabl1ng, sedous and permanent physlcal and emotional lnJLiries, all to Plaintiffs'21general damage in an amount presently unascertainable. Plaintiffs will s eek leave of22 Court ta amend this complaint to set forth the full amount of damage sustatned a 23 result thereof when ascertained.2484.As a further proximate result of the wrongful conduct of Defendants25 SCMCNM and CONNEALY, Plaintiffs have incurred medical, hospital, psychological20 and related expenses in a svm presently unascertainable. Plaintiffs will seek leave of27 Court to amend this complaint to set forth the full amount of damage sustained as a28 result thereof when ascertained.17Corp plaint for Damages

85.A'i a further prox,mate result of the wrongful conduct of Defendants2 SCMCNM and CONNEALY, Plaintiffs will ih the future incur medical 1 hospital,3 psychological and related expenses, the exact nature and extent of which are currently4unknown to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs will seek leave of Court to amend this complaint to set5 forth the full amount of damage sustained as a result thereof when ascertained.-6SECOND CAUSEOf ACTION.7(.For Medical Malpractice by Plaintiff ARDIS and HENRY8MOHRSCHLADT Against Defendants9SCMCNM, CONNEALY, MILLER, MASON and Does 6 through 10)1o1t12 86. Plaintiffs reallegeand incorporate herein by reference all of thi alregatlohsset forth ln paragraphs 1 through 71 as 1hough fully set forth.87. Pursuant to ARDIS' retention of Defendants CONNEALY. MILLER, MASON,13 SCMCNM and Does 6 through 10, inclusive\ and HENRY's retention of Defendants14 CONNEALY 1 MASON, SCMCNM and Does 6 through 10, inclusive, to diagnose and1 s tre t their medical complaints. said Defendant rendered professional medical services;6 in the diagnosls, treatment and care of ARDIS and HENRY.1788. At the time that ARDIS sought the professional services of Defendants18MILLER and SCMCNM in or about November 2003, and Defendants MASON and19 SCMCNM on or about November 15, 2006, and at the time HENRY sought the20professional services of Defendants MASON and SCMCNM on or about May 5, 2008,21 and Defendants CONNEALY and SCMCNM on or about June 24. 2008, said22Defendants maintained their medical office and held themselves out to the general23public as compet

Defendant ALIREZA PANAHPOUR, D.D.S. (hereinafter referred to as 1 28 "PANA") is, and at all times herein mentioned was, a dentist licensed to practice 1 Complaint for Damages -1 dentistry by the State of California, holding license #41661. with his principal place of