You are on page 1of 18
VIRGINIA: IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FAIRFAX COUNTY DB. Vienna, VA 22182 PLAINTIFF, 4 20138-16811 v. Civil Action No. ‘TIFFANY INGHAM, M.D. 3998 Fair Ridge Dr. #260 Fairfax, VA 22033 and AISTHESIS, LLC 4416 East West Highway Suite 210 Bethesda, MD 20814 Serve: Damian Alagia, M.D., President 4416 East West Highway Suite 210 Bethesda, MD 20814 and SOLOMAN SHAH, MD c/o Gastrointestinal Medicine Associates, P.C. 3620 Joseph Siewick Dr., Suite 307 Fairfax, VA 22033 and GASTROINTESTINAL MEDICINE ASSOCIATES, P.C. 3620 Joseph Siewick Dr., Suite 307 Fairfax, VA 22033 Serve: Myron Shoham, M.D. 3620 Joseph Siewick Dr., Suite 307 Fairfax, VA 22033 DEFENDANTS. COMPLAINT COMES NOW the Plaintiff, D.B. (commencing suit anonymously pursuant to Code of Virginia § 8.01-15.1), by counsel, and pursuant to the Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia moves for judgment against the Defendants Tiffany Ingham, M.D., AISTHESIS, LLC, Soloman Shah M.D., and Gastrointestinal Medicine Associates, P.C., on the grounds and in the amounts set forth below. INTRODUCTION 1. This is an astonishing case. On April 18, 2013, during a colonoscopy, Plaintiff was verbally brutalized and defamed by the very doctors to whom he entrusted his life while under anesthesia. Unbeknownst to Defendants Tiffany Ingham, M.D. and Soloman Sheh, M.D., their outrageous and appalling conduct was inadvertently recorded. When later confronted with their heinous conduct, some Defendants denied that anything inappropriate had occurred, and implied that Plaintiff must have imagined it since he was sedated and unconscious at times. ‘The Defendants have severely and permanently injured Plaintiff. In addition to compensatory damages, Plaintiff seeks punitive damages so that no other member of the community suffers such egregious conduct when placing his life into doctors” hands. 2. Jurisdiction in Fairfax County Circuit Court for this matter is based upon Code of Virginia §17.1-513. 3. Plaintiff D.B. is long-time resident of Virginia, and an attorney. 4. Defendant Tiffany Ingham, M.D. is a physician practicing medicine in the Commonwealth of Virginia. She is an anesthesiologist. 5. Defendant AISTHESIS, LLC is a corporation organized under Maryland law and doing business in the Commonwealth of Virginia. 6. On April 18, 2013, Defendant Ingham was acting in her personal capacity and in her capacity as an agent and representative of Defendant AISTHESIS, LLC. 7. Gastrointestinal Medicine Associates, P.C. (hereinafter “GMA”) is a corporation organized under Virginia law and doing business in the Commonwealth of Virginia. 8. Defendant Soloman Shah M.D. is a physician practicing medicine in the Commonwealth of Virginia. He is a gastroenterologist. 9. On April 18, 2013, Defendant Shah was acting in his personal capacity and in his capacity as an agent and representative of GMA. 10. On April 18, 2013, employees and other agents of GMA, including medical assistants and nurses, interacted with and provided medical care to Plaintiff at GMA. 11, Plaintiff visited GMA in Reston, Virginia on April 18, 2013. 12, Plaintiff visited GMA on April 18, 2013 to receive medical care and treatment in the form of a colonoscopy. 13. A colonoscopy involves the endoscopic examination of the large bowel and the distal part of the small bowel with a specialized camera. 14, During the colonoscopy procedure the patient is usually anesthetized. 15. Plaintiff was advised before April 18, 2013 that he would be anesthetized during the procedure and that he may be groggy afterwards. 16. Plaintiff was concemed that he would have difficulty understanding or recalling ost-procedure instructions and aftercare advice from his health care providers. Therefore, Plaintiff set his mobile phone to record post-procedure instructions and aftercare advice from his health care providers. 17, Plaintiff was instructed to change out of his clothes, and deposit them ~ along ‘with his personal belongings — in a plastic bag provided by GMA. 18 Unbeknownst to Plaintiff, the bag containing Piaintiff's clothes and personal belongings, including his mobile phone, ended up in the operating suite with him. As a result, Plaintiff's mobile phone audio recorded the entire preparation and procedure. 19. Plaintiff spoke with Defendant Ingham prior to the colonoscopy. As a precaution, he advised Defendant Ingham that he had “passed out before when I've had blood drawn,” that he was experiencing “cold clamminess,” and that he felt himself breaking out in a sweat, Plaintiff also asked Defendant Ingham about the needle used to start the IV. 20. Defendant Ingham asked Plaintiff about his use of Gabapentin, a prescription drug Plaintiff listed on GMA’s pre-op questionnaire. Plaintiff advised Defendant Ingham that a dermatologist had prescribed Gabapentin to treat a mild irritation on the exterior of his penis. 21. While Defendant Ingham spoke with Plaintiff sbout the anesthesia process, she became increasingly short and dismissive with Plaintiff's questions and comments. 22. The moment that Plaintiff became unconscious, Defendant Ingham commented to all of the others in the operating room “Oh — Oscar Mike Goss.” That is a thinly disguised substitute for the expression “OMG”, which is an expression of both exasperation and mockery, and is a well-known abbreviation for “Oh my God.” 23. Defendant Ingham started to mock, and then continued to mock, the amount of medicine required to anesthetize Plaintiff. 24. Referring to Plaintiff, Defendant Shah commented that a teaching physician ‘known to both him and Defendant Ingham “would eat him for lunch.” 25. Defendant Ingham agreed that Plaintiff would be “eaten alive” and also jokingly discussed a hypothetical of firing a gun up a rectum. 26. Defendant Ingham spoke this crude language in a mock voice apparently intended to impersonate the African-American teaching physician's voice. 27. Defendant Ingham then elaborated, and referenced the teaching physician, by directly addressing the Plaintiff undergoing a colonoscopy: LD. Britt would've eaten you up for lunch, would have picked his teeth. He would have wiped his butt with you. And really, after five minutes of talking to ‘you in pre-op I wanted to punch you in the face and man you up a little bit. 28. These comments reflect the malice of Defendant Ingham and Defendant Shab. 29. Defendant Ingham, Defendant Shah, and an unknown medical assistant of GMA discussed Plaintiff's prescription of Gabapentin, the irritation on Plaintiff's penis, and Plaintiff's consultation with urologists. Defendant Ingham mocked Plaintiff for looking up Gabapentin on Google, and twice stated “He's crazy.” 30. Gabapentin has no medical significance whatsoever to a colonoscopy or to the anesthesia care being provided. 31. Defendant Ingham had no medical basis to disclose this private health information to others. 32. A medical assistant at GMA touched Plaintiff's penis during the colonoscopy. 33. Although Plaintiff's penis is not involved in a colonoscopy, the medical assistant noted there was not “much of a penile rash.” Defendant Ingham responded, “No, you'll ‘accidentally rub up against it. Some syphilis on your arm or something.” Defendant Shah responded, “That would be bad. That would be real bad.” 34. Plaintiff does not have syphilis. Plaintiff has never been diagnosed with syphilis. 35. Syphilis is a contagious disease. 36. Defendant Ingham then stated to all present in the operating suite that, “It's probably tuberculosis in the penis, so you'll be all right.” 37. Plaintiff does not have tuberculosis. Plaintiff has never been diagnosed with ‘tuberculosis. 38. Tuberculosi a contagious disease. 39. Defendant Ingham agein directly addressed the Plaintiff undergoing a colonoscopy, stating “Sir, you're — you're — the word I want to use to describe you is not appropriate for this venue.” This comment further demonstrates Defendant Ingham's malice. 40. All Defendants then engaged in a discussion about misleading and avoiding Plaintiff after he awoke from the anesthesia, 41. Defendant Shah told a medical assistant to speak with Plaintiff and to convince Plaintiff that had he spoken with Dr. Shah: “Just tell him Dr. Shah said everything, you just don’t remember it. You're just repeating it. He won’t know.” The female medical assistant at GMA responded: “Yeah. ‘Dr. Shah came and talked to you. Do you feel ready to go home? Go get your paperwork. And try to remember what he said. I'm sure you'll come up with it.” She then added, “He will keep you talking,” 42, Defendant Ingham suggested, “You're gonna have to have a timer go off.” She further suggested “Or have like a fake page. ‘Dr. Shah, you're needed urgently in the office.’ ‘Okay, I have to go now, excuse me,” Defendant Ingham added, “I’ve done the fake page befoee.” 43. Defendant Ingham then mocked Plaintiff for taking 15 minutes to change his clothes: “I’m like, you're a guy. How many clothes are you wearing?” 44. A female medical assistant at GMA recalled that Plaintiff had earlier warmed that he passes out when looking at the placement of an IV, to which Defendant Ingham asked “Well, why are you looking then, retard?” 45, Defendant Ingham also described Plaintiff as a “big wimp.” 46. Referencing her patients in general Defendant Ingham declared “I love it. I don’t ‘even argue with these people anymore. I just go, okay, no known drug allergies and write it in their chart. I'm like, ‘you're stupid.’ ‘You're too stupid to know what's wrong."” Defendant Ingham went on to clarify “People are into their medical problems. They need to have medical problems.” 47. Defendant Shah agreed: “I call it the Northern Virginia syndrome.” 48. Referring to Plaintiff, Defendant Ingham stated that, “I just really don't want to talk to him,” following the colonoscopy. 49. Defendant Ingham wondered aloud which nurse would be responsible for speaking with Plaintiff following the colonoscopy. “Round and round we go. Wheel of annoying patients we go. Where it'll land, nobody knows.” 50. As the colonoscopy neared completion, Defendant Ingham, Defendant Shab, and an unknown medical assistant of GMA mocked Plaintiff for attending Mary Washington College instead of MIT, suggested that it was unsurprising that Plaintiff attended a college that ‘at one time was a “women’s college,” a “git!’s school,” and wondered if Plaintiff was gay. 51, Defendant Ingham stated, “Are you implying thst he’s gay? Because I know ‘gay men that have more manliness than” the Plaintiff, “And I'm sure I know gay men in the military who just haven't let it be known that they’re gay who are manly.” 52, Defendant Ingham then stated, “I'm going to mark ‘hemorrhoids’ even though we don’t see them and probably won’t.” The subsequent post-operative note signed by Defendant Ingham did in fact indicate a diagnosis of hemorthoids, which constitutes a falsification of medical records. 53. As his wife wes driving him home, Plaintiff began listening to the audio recording to hear the post-procedure explanation of the results. 54, Plaintiff and his wife realized that the entire procedure had been recorded. To their shock, horror, and disgust, Plaintiff and his wife leamed what had occurred during the procedure. 55, Plaintiff has suffered distress, including embarrassment, loss of sleep, and mental anguish, as a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct. 56. Asa result of Defendants’ conduct Plaintiff became stressed, agitated, anxious, angry, and humiliated. 57, As a result of Defendants’ conduct, for weeks Plaintiff could barely think of anything beyond the humiliating experience he had endured. 58. Asaresult of Defendants’ conduct Plaintiff could not focus on work. 59, Plaintiff subsequently had to visit another gastrocnterologist to discuss Defendant Shah's findings. Plaintiff wanted to discuss the findings with his treating health care provider, but Plaintiff got so upset and agitated every time he even thought about Defendant ‘Shah that there was no way he could do so. 60. The second gastroenterologist indicated that Defendant Sheh’s medical conclusions were likely correct, but did not think Defendant Shah had gone far enough in the colonoscopy. This second gastroenterologist suggested performing an endoscopy, but said he would understand if Plaintiff did not want to undergo that procedure given Plaintiff's recent experience. Plaintiff declined to undergo the procedure. 61. The thought of being sedated for any procedure, now or in the future, is incredibly upsetting to Plaintiff. 62. Plaintiff visited a primary care physician in May of 2013 and informed her of his experience with the colonoscopy. The physician observed Plaintiff's great distress and prescribed ‘anti-anxiety medications. Plaintiff has taken anti-anxiety medications as direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ conduct. COUNT I: DEFAMATION PER SE - SYPHILIS 63. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1 to 62 of the Complaint as if fully set forth 64. Plaintiff's rights include the uninterrupted entitlement to enjoyment of his 65, Plaintiff is a private individual and not a public figure. 66. Defendant Ingham has injured Plaintiff's reputation. 67. Defendant Ingham published to third parties (including Defendant Shah and other individuals) the following statement in haec verba in regard to Plaintiff's penis: “No, you'll accidentally rub up against it. Some syphilis on your arm or something.” 68. Syphilis is a contagious disease. 69. Plaintiff has never hed syphil 70. Defendant Ingham’s statement about syphilis was patently and demonstrably false when made. 1. ‘Defendant Ingham made the actionable statement intentionally and in bad faith; she had reviewed Plaintiff's health history immediately prior to the colonoscopy and knew that Plaintiff had no diagnosis of syphilis. 72. Defendant Ingham made the actionable statement maliciously, consistent with Defendant Ingham’s expressed desire to punch Plaintiff in the face because he presented as a nervous patient. B. Defendant Ingham had no interest or duty in making her false statement about 74, Defendant Ingham has not offered nor made to Plaintiff any apology for her defamatory statement regarding Plaintiff. 75. Defendant Ingham was acting as an agent and representative of Defendant AISTHESIS, LLC when she published her defamatory comments to other individuals, and Defendant AISTHESIS, LLC has failed to disavow or repudiate them. 76. Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages in the amount of $5,000,000 and punitive damages in the amount of $350,000 against Defendant Ingham and Defendant AISTHESIS, LLC. (COUNT I: DEFAMATION PER SE - TUBERCULOSIS 7. Plaintiff ineorporates paragraphs 1 to 62 of the Complaint as if fully set forth herein, 78. Plaintiff's rights include the uninterrupted entitlement to enjoyment of his 79, Plaintiff isa private individual and not a public figure. 80. Defendant Ingham has injured Plaintiff's reputation. 81. Defendant Ingham published to third parties (including Defendant Shah and other individuals) the following statement in haec verba in regard to Plaintiff's penis: “It's probably tuberculosis in the penis, so you'll be all right.” 82. Tuberculosis is a contagious disease. 83. Plaintiff has never had tuberculosis. 84. Defendant Ingham’s statement about tuberculosis was patently and demonstrably false when made. 85. Defendant Ingham made the actionable statement intentionally and in bad faith; she had reviewed Plaintiff's health history immediately prior to the colonoscopy and knew that Plaintiff had no diagnosis of tuberculosis. 86. Defendant Ingham made the actionable statement maliciously, consistent with Defendant Ingham’s expressed desire to punch Plaintiff in the face because he presented as a nervous patient, 87. Defendant Ingham had no interest or duty in making her false statement about 88. Defendant Ingham has not offered nor made to Plaintiff any apology for her defamatory statement regarding Plaintiff. 89. Defendant Ingham was acting as an agent and representative of Defendant AISTHESIS, LLC when she published her defamatory comments to other individuals, and Defendant AISTHESIS, LLC has failed to disavow or repudiate them. 90. Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages in the amount of $5,000,000 and punitive damages in the amount of $350,000 against Defendant Ingham and Defendant AISTHESIS, LLC, i: [CTION. DISTRESS 91. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1 to 62 of the Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 92, Defendant Ingham and Defendant Shah disclosed to others the private health ccare information of Plaintiff to mock him, embarrass him, and make him an object of humor. 93. Defendant Ingham, Defendant Shah, and agents of GMA mocked, defamed, and verbally abused Plaintiff on April 18, 2013. 94. In reference to the already improper and defamatory discussion of Plaintif?'s penis, Defendant Shah commented “As long as it's not Ebola you're okay.” Plaintiff has never been diagnosed with Ebola virus disease, which is a contagious disease. 95. The conduct of Defendant Ingham, Defendant Shah, and agents of GMA on April 18, 2013 was intentional, 96. The behavior described herein was outrageous and intolerable, beyond the bounds of decency, and not merely bad manners or breach of some trivial etiquette. 97. Plaintiff has suffered severe and verifiable distress, including emberrassment, loss of sleep, mental anguish, and anxiety for which Plaintiff sought and received treatment. 98. The PlaintifP’s distress, including embarrassment, loss of sleep, mental anguish, and anxiety is genuine and severe. 99. Plaintiff has suffered distress, including embarrassment, loss of sleep, mental anguish, and anxiety as a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct. 100. Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages in the amount of $5,000,000 and punitive damages in the amount of $350,000 against all Defendants. s LI (01 [ONAL DI 101. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1 to 62 of the Complaint as if fully set forth herein, 102. Defendant Ingham and Defendant Shah disclosed to others the private health care information of Plaintiff to mock him, embarrass him, and make him an object of humor. 103. Defendant Ingham, Defendant Shah, and agents of GMA mocked, defamed, and verbally abused Plaintiff on April 18, 2013. 104, In reference to the already improper and defamatory discussion of Plaintiff's penis, Defendant Shah commented “As long as it's not Ebola you're okay.” Plaintiff has never been diagnosed with Ebola virus disease, which is a contagious disease. 105, Defendants physically touched Plaintiff on April 18, 2013 while verbally brutalizing Plaintiff, and at least one Defendant physically touched Plaintiff's penis, 106, Plaintiff has suffered severe and verifiable injury and distress, including embarrassment, loss of sleep, mental unguish, and anxiety four which Plaintiff sought and received treatment. 107. Plaintiff has suffered injury and distress as a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct. 108. Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages in the amount of $5,000,000 and punitive damages in the amount of $350,000 against all Defendants. COUNT V: VIOLATION OF CODE OF VIRGINIA § 32.1-127.1:03 “HEALTH RECORDS PRIVACY” 109. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1 to 62 of the Complaint as if fully set forth herein, 110, Pursuant to Code of Virginia § 32.1-127.1:03, the Commonwealth of Virginia recognizes the individual’s right of privacy in the content of his health records. 111. In Virginia, no health care provider may redisclose or otherwise reveal the health records of an individual, beyond the purpose for which such disclosure was made, ‘without first obtaining the individual's specific authorization to such redisclosure. 112. Code of Virginia § 32.1-127.1:03 defines “Health record” to include the substance of any communication made by an individual to a health care entity in confidence during or in connection with the provision of health services or information otherwise acquired by the health care entity about an individual in confidence and in connection with the provision of health services to the 113, Defendant Ingham leamed from Plaintiff that he was using a particular medicine to treat a minor but embarrassing condition, and one wholly unrelated to the colonoscopy being performed on April 18, 2013, and wholly unrelated to the associated 114, Nevertheless, Defendant Ingham disclosed the private health care information of Plaintiff to others without any valid basis and without Plaintiff's specific authorization. 115. As a direct and proximate result Plaintiff has suffered distress, including embarrassment, loss of sleep, mental anguish, and anxiety for which Plaintiff sought and received treatment. 116. Defendant Shah leamed from Plaintiff that he had consulted with urologists to ‘reat a minor but embarrassing condition, and one wholly unrelated to the colonoscopy being performed on April 18, 2013, and wholly unrelated to the associated anesthesia. 117. Nevertheless, Defendant Shah disclosed the private health care information of Plaintiff to others without any valid basis and without Plaintiff's specific authorization, 14 118. As a direct and proximate result Plaintiff has suffered distress, including embarrassment, loss of sleep, mental anguish, and anxiety for which Plaintiff sought and received treatment. 119. Defendant Ingham was acting as an agent of Defendant AISTHESIS, LLC ‘when she disclosed the private health information of Plaintiff. 120. Defendant Shah was acting as an agent of Gastrointestinal Medicine Associates, P.C. when he disclosed the private health information of Plaintiff. 121. Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages in the amount of $5,000,000 and punitive damages in the amount of $350,000 against each and every Defendant, UNT VI: MEDI CE 122, Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1 to 62 of the Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 123. Defendant Shah is a health-care provider licensed in the Commonwealth of Virginia who provided care and treatment to Plaintiff in Virginia, and a physician-patient relationship existed between Dr. Shah and Plaintiff. As such, Dr. Shah owed Plaintiff a duty to conform his conduct to the applicable standard of care. 124, Defendant Ingham is a health-care provider licensed in the Commonwealth of Virginia who provided care and treatment to Plaintiff in Virginia, and a physician-patient relationship existed between Dr. Ingham and Plaintiff. As such, Dr. Ingham owed Plaintiff a duty to conform her conduct to the applicable standard of care. 125, Each and every Defendant owed to Plaintiff a duty to exercise that degree of skill, judgment and care expected of reasonably competent health care practitioners practicing under the same or similar circumstances as those involving Plaintiff, which duties included safeguarding private health information. 126. The standard of care in Virginia prohibits health care providers from disclosing private health care information about patients without specific authorization. 127. Defendant Ingham leamed from Plaintiff that he was using a particular medicine to treat a minor but embarrassing condition, and one wholly unrelated to the colonoscopy being performed on April 18, 2013, and wholly unrelated to the associated anesthesia. 128. Nevertheless, Defendant Ingham disclosed the private health care information of Plaintiff to others without any valid basis and without Plaintiff's specific authorization. 129. This breach of the standard of care constitutes medical malpractice pursuant to Code of Virginia § 8.01-581.20. 130. Plaintiff has suffered actual harm as a direct and proximate result of Defendant Ingham’s breach of the standard of care. 131. Defendant Shah leamed from Plaintiff that he had consulted with urologists to treat a minor but embarrassing condition, and one wholly unrelated to the colonoscopy being performed on April 18, 2013, and wholly unrelated to the associated anesthesia. 132, Nevertheless, Defendant Shah disclosed the private health care information of Plaintiff to others without any valid basis and without PlaintifP’s specific authorization. 133. This breach of the standard of care constitutes medical malpractice pursuant to Code of Virginia § 8.01-581.20. 134. Plaintiff has suffered actual harm as a direct and proximate result of Defendant Shah’s breach of the standard of care. 16 135, Defendant Ingham wes acting es an agent of Defendant AISTHESIS, LLC when she disclosed the private health information of Plaintiff. 136. Defendant Shah was acting as an agent of Gastrointestinal Medicine Associates, P.C. when he disclosed the private health information of Plaintiff. 137. The post-operative ‘note signed by Defendant Ingham falsely indicated a diagnosis of hemorrhoids. 138. The standard of care requires that medical records be generated accurately, and falsifying medical records is a breach of the standard of care which constitutes medical malpractice pursuant to Code of Virginia § 8.01-581.20. 139. Defendant Ingham was acting as an agent of Defendant AISTHESIS, LLC when she falsified the medical records of Plaintiff. 140, Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages in the amount of $5,000,000 and punitive damages in the amount of $350,000 against each and every Defendant. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff D.B requests judgment against each and every Defendant in the amounts set forth within each specific count, jointly and severally, in all sums permissible in Virginia, to include costs pursuant to Code of Virginia § 17.601, and pre-judgment interest and post-judgment interest pursuant to Code of Virginia § 8.01-382. A jury trial is hereby demanded pursuant to Code of Virginia § 8.01-336(A) and Virginia Rule 3:21(b) “Jury Trial of Right.” 7 Respectfully submitted, PERRY CHARNOFF, PLLC Whe 7 ‘Mikhael D. Chamoff, VSB No. 43929 Scott M. Perry, VSB No. 62417 2300 Wilson Bivd,, Suite 240 Arlington, VA 22201 Phone: (703) 291-6650 Fax: (703) 563-6692 mi ‘hamnof ‘scott@perrychamoff.com

You might also like