You are on page 1of 29
Electronically Filed 03/06/2015 01:35:25 PM iin robin CLERK OF THE COURT JACOM 1 |/ANDREW WaSTELEWSKI, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 6161 2 |THE WASIELEWSKI LAW FIRM, LTD. 8275 S. Eastern Avenue, Suite 200-818 3 [Las vegas, Nv 89123, Phone: (702) 521-1443 4 |[rax: (702) 548-9684 _ [Attorney for Plaintife 6 DISTRICT COURT 7 CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA fase No. A~15~714159-c 9 ||NortK aKopyan, pt No. XXV: a0 Plaintife, 12 ADAM LOUSIGNONT, NADIC NETWORK . 15 |/NORTA AMERICAN DaNzAL rwPLanTs ¢ Arbitration Exemption Claimed: COSMETICS, LIC, DOES 1 through § ction for ental Malpractice 1s [ana RoEs 7 through 20, ursuant to NRS 41A.004 Defendante re VERIFIED AMENDED COMPLAINT av COMES NOW, Plaintiff NORTK AKOPYAN, through his counsel of 38 lrecord ANDREW WASIELEWSKI, ESQ. of the law firm of THE WASIELEWSKI 7° WItaw FIRM, LTD. complains and avers of the Defendants as follows: a 1. Plaintiff NORIK AKOPYAN, (hereinafter “NORIK”) was, at all aa times relevant in this complaint, an individual resident of the as ||Of Nevada, County of Clark. NORIK’s primary language is Armenian. a 2. Defendant ADAM LOUSIGNONT, (hereinafter “LOUSIGNOW?”) at all 25 |[times material herein, is an individual resident of the State of 26 ||Nevada. Defendant LOUSIGNONT regularly engages in the practice of 77 dentistry in Clark County and is licensed in the State of Nevada * lIpursuant to NRS 631 et. seq. as a dentist. a0 n 12 as u a5 16 av 18 a9 20 a 22 23 24 25 26 2 28 Defendant NADIC NETWORK NORTH AMERICAN DENTAL IMPLANTS & COSMEIICS, LLC (hereinafter NADIC or NADIC NETWORK) is a Nevada Limited Liability Company, licensed to do business in the State of Nevada, with its principle office located at 9575 W Tropicana Ave Las Vegas, NV 89147. This Defendant was previously known as ROE 6. Plaintiff just recently became aware of ROE 6’s actual name and therefore, substitutes its actual name in place of ROE 6. 4, On all relevant dates, Defendant NADIC is a Nevada Limited Liability Company engaged in the practice of dentistry in the state of Nevada by and through Defendant LouSTGNONT. 5. On all relevant dates, Defendant NADIC employed Defendant LOUSIGNONT and the other DOE Defendants, at its 9575 W Tropicana Ave, Las Vegas, NV 89147 location, which is located in Clark County, NV as dentists or other dental professionals licensed to perform dentristy or other dental work related to dental implants. 6. In the past and as of the date of filing this verified Amended Complaint, Defendant NADIC’s website located at www nadicnetwork.com advertises its dental practice as “Anerica’s #1 Destination for Dental implants” and displays a picture of Defendant LOUSIGNONT, posing next to Defendant NADIC’s president and manager, Lori Werder as he is one of the dentists employed by Defendant NADIC. 7. The true names or capacities, whether an individual or a Professional medical corporation, associate, or otherwise, of Defendants named herein as DOES 1 through 5 and ROES 7 through 10 are unknown to Plaintiff, who therefore, sues said Defendants by such 10 a 12 aa a 15 16 v a8 19 20 a 22 23 2a 25 26 an 28 fictitious names. Plaintiff is informed, believes and therein Jalleges, that each of the Defendants designated herein as DOES, are legally responsible in some manner for the events and happenings referred to, or intentionally or negligently concealed an act, error 9 omission upon which the action is based and which is known or through the use of reasonable diligence should have been known to such DOH Defendants, and legally caused injuries and damages to Plaintiff, as herein alleged. Plaintiff will ask leave of the Court to amend his Complaint to insert the true names and capacities of DOES 1 through 5 and ROES 7 through 10 inclusive when the same have Jbeen ascertained and to join such Defendants in this action. 8. Plaintiff is informed, believes and thereon alleges, that at all times herein relevant, Defendants DOES 1 through 5 and ROES 7 ‘through 10 and each of them, were and now are residents of or Jdomiciled in the County of Clark, State of Nevada. 9. On May 1, 2012; June 14, 2012, July 5, 2012 and March 12, 2013, Plaintiff went to the office of Defendant NADIC, whom employed Defendant LOUSIGNONT at its location in Clark County, Nevada, in order to receive dental treatment. 10. On May 1, 2012, Defendant LOUSIGNONT and DOES 1 through 5 and all or any of them provided dental treatment to Plaintiff in the form of preparing and drilling the #10 tooth for placement of a metal post in Plaintife’s mouth in Plaintifé’s #10 tooth. 11, Defendant LouSTGNONT and DOES 1 through 5 and all or any of them prepared the #10 tooth by drilling into it and placing a metal ao rr a2 3 aa 1s a6 7 18 as 20 a 2 23 2a 25 26 27 28 post in Plaintitf’s mouth in preparation for inserting a permanent dental implant into Plaintiff, in Plaintiff's 410 tooth. 12. On June 14, 2012, Defendant LOUSIGNONT and DOES 1 through 5 and all or any of them provided dental treatment to Plaintiff in the form of preparation of Plaintiff's #10 tooth in order to permanently Place a porcelain crown on the metal post Defendants placed Previously in Plaintiff’s mouth. Also, Defendant LOUSIGNONT and DOES 1 through § and all or any of them provided dental treatment regarding taking fixture level impressions of Plaintiff's teeth. 13. On July 5, 2012, Defendant 1L0USIGNONT and DOES 1 through 5 and all or any of them provided dental treatment to Plaintiff in the form of permanently placing a porcelain crown onto the post in the area of Plaintift’s #10 tooth. 14. On July 13, 2012, Plaintite’s insurance company issued a statement of benefits to Plaintiff that shows that Defendant OUSIGNONT billed Plaintiff's insuzance company for process code 2984; @ post and core process on Plaintiff's #10 tooth, regarding the procedures that Defendant LOUSIGNONT performed on Plaintifé on May 1, 2012. 15. On July 27, 2012, Plaintife’s insurance company issued a statement of benefits to Plaintiff that shows that Defendant WOUSIGNONT billed Plaintif£’s insurance company tor process code P6751 and issued pay code 02751; a crown process on Plaintitt’s #10 tooth, regarding the procedures that Defendant LOUSIGNON? performed on| Plaintiff on June 14, 2012. 10 a az a3 a4 as a6 av we as 20 aa 22 23 24 8 26 2 28 16. On March 12, 2013, Defendant LOUSIGNONT and DOES 2 through 5 took x-rays of Plaintiff and performed a dental exam of Plaintiff, 17. Defendant LOUSIGNONT never discussed any problens with Plaintift’s #10 tooth or with the work done on this tooth at any tine before, on March 12, 2013 or after. 18. At no time since May 1, 2012 did Defendant LoUsTGNONT or any DOE defendant ever discuss with Plaintiff any problems Defendant LOUSIGNONT had with inserting the metal post into the area of Plaintifs’s #10 tooth, or any malpractice performed on Plaintiff by yhim or any DOE defendant at any time, regarding the #10 tooth. 19, Plaintiff has had numerous medical problems since the insertion of the post in the #10 tooth area by Defendant Loustenonr, including but not Limited to severe headaches, eye watering, infections, and lack of good vision. 20. Plaintiff did not have a copy of his dental records from Defendant LOUSIGNONT and attempted to receive them from Defendant in February of 2014. 21, On or about February 28, 2014, Plaintiff received an electronic copy of medical records. Of the 48 pages sent by Defendant LOUSTGNONT, only 12 pages of records were fully legible, as well as a few other documents, which were not related to his treatment or any other type of dental record. Defendant refused to provide any additional copies. 22. On March 21, 2014, Plaintiff became aware that in the area of the #10 tooth, there is a perforation of the tooth root and an 10 u 2 as 1“ 15 16 W a8 19 20 a 22 23 24 2s 26 2 28 extension of the metal post through the side of the tooth into the adjacent bone, extending for about 10 mnt! 23. On Mazch 21, 2014, Plaintiff learned that Defencant LOUSIGNONT, DOES 1 through 5 or any or all of them, drilled a hole through the side of Plaintife’s #10 tooth, into the adjacent bone, for a distance of about 10 mn!! 24. On March 21, 2014, Plaintiff learned that because Defendant LOUSIGNONT, DOES 1 through 5 or any or all of them drilled a hole through the side of the tooth and into the bone, the metal post he or another DOH defendant or all of them placed into the #10 tooth also Jextended out of the tooth and into the bone by about 10 mn! 25. There is a significant amount of bone loss in the area of the perforation, due to the perforation of the #10 tooth. 26. On March 21, 2014, Plaintiff had pain and a low grade infection in his #10 tooth, for which he received pain medicine and antibiotics. 27. On March 21, 2014, Plaintifé was told that his #10 tooth was hopeless and it needed to be removed. 28. On July 3, 2014, an agent for Defendant LOUSIGNONT explained that Defendant LOUSIGNONT never did any work for Plaintiff and could not be responsible for any liability to Plaintisf, 29. Due to the agent’s false statements on July 3, 2014, Plaintiff vas required to receive his Statements of Benefits directly from his Insurer, to prove that Defendant LOUSIGNONT performed the 10 a 2 a3 14 15 16 a 18 19 20 2 22 23 2 25 26 2 28 Procedures on May 1, 2012, June 14, 2012 and July 5, 2012. plaintife received this information on August 17, 2014. 30. On November 10, 2014, Plaintift went to another dentist who determined that the metal post placement and negligent drilling through the side of the tooth and into the adjacent bone caused a fistula on Plaintiff's distal facial area, which caused a sinus tract with infection and a large amount of bone loss around the #10 tooth 31. On November 10, 2014, noticing that Plaintiff had a sinus tract with infection and a large amount of bone loss all surrounding Plaintiff’s #10 tooth, this dentist performed an atraumatic extraction, cleaned out the infection in that area and placed a bone Graft in the area due to the large amount of bone loss. 32. Due to the fact that Plaintife must wait for healing to occur after this infection, extraction and bone graft, Plaintiff cannot have another implant placed in his mouth until no earlier than February of 2015, 33. The gap in his teeth from the loss of his #10 tooth is very embarrassing and humiliating to Plaintiff, which is all caused by the acts of Defendant LOUSIGNONT, the DOES and all or any of them. 34. Degendant LOUSIGNONT, DOES 1 through 5 and all or any of them, committed dental malpractice pursuant to NRS 41A.004 and NRS 631.075 when he and they drilled a hole into Plaintiff's #10 tooth that went through the tooth and into the surrounding bone as much as 10 mm more than it should have. 10 u 2 1 a 1s 16 v 1a as 20 a 2 a 24 25 26 21 28 35. Defendant LOUSIGNONT, DOES 1 through 5 and all or any of then, committed dental malpractice pursuant to NRS 631.075 when he and they placed a metal post into Plaintiff's #10 tooth in such a manner that it extended into adjacent bone as much as 10 m. 36. Defendant LOUSIGNONT, DOES 1 through 5 and all or any of then, committed dental malpractice pursuant to MRS 631.075 when he and they and concealed this information from NORTK on May 1, 2012, Jane 14, 2012, July 5, 2012 and March 12, 2013. 37. Defendant LOUSIGNONT, DOES 1 through 5 and all or any of them, committed dental malpractice pursuant to NRS 631.075 when he and they instructed his and their agent to conmunicate to NORIK that Defendant LOUSTGNONT and DOES 1 through 5 never performed any dental Work on Plaintiff and who communicated that false statement to Plaintiff on guly 3, 2014. 38. On May 1, 2012, June 14, 2012, July 5, 2012 and march 12, 2013, when Defendant LOUSIGNONT did work on or near Plaintifé’s #10 tooth, Defendant LOUSIGNONT, DOES 1 through 5 and all or any of then, knew or should have known that the hole drilled into Plaintifé's #10 tooth negligently went through the tooth and into the surrounding bone, but concealed this information from Plaintiff, despite the tact that Plaintis# was present in the office of Defendant NADIC 39. On May 1, 2012, June 14, 2012, July 5, 2012 and March 12, 2013, when Defendant LOUSIGNONT did work on or near Plaintifé’s #10 tooth, Defendant LOUSIGNONT, DOES 1 through 5 and all or any of them, knew or should have known that the metal post placed into Plaintiff's 10 aa 2 a a6 15 16 ” a8 as 20 an 2 23 24 25 26 20 28 #20 tooth went through the tooth and into the surrounding bone, but concealed this information from Plaintiff. 40. On May 1, 2012, June 14, 2012, July 5, 2012 and Mazch 12, 2013, when Defendant LOUSIGNONT did work on or near Plaintiff's #10 tooth, Defendant LOUSIGNONT, DOES 1 through 5 and all or any of then, knew or should have known that Defendant LOUSIGNONT’s and the DOES negligent acts would cause bone loss, headaches, pain, eye problens, #10 toot loss, infection, enbarrasement, humiliation and fistula, Jbut concealed this information from Plaintize. 41. During the Plaintife’s treatment on May 1, 2012, June 14, 2012, July 5, 2012 and March 12, 2013, Defendant LOUSIGNONT and DOES 1 through 5 and ali of them owed a duty to the Plaintiff to perform the treatment within an acceptable standard of medical care within the medical community and Defendant LOUSIGNONT and DOES 1 through 5 breached this standard of care by drilling a hole through the side of Plaintiff's #10 tooth and into the surrounding bone, and placing a metal post through the #10 tooth and into surrounding bone, causing the Plaintiff physical injury. 42. Defendant LOUSIGNONT, DORS 1 through 5 and all or any of them concealed information from Plaintiff of his or their negligence / dental malpractice that occurred on May 1, 2012, June 14, 2012, July 5, 2012 and March 12, 2013 until Plaintiff learned of the dental malpractice / negligence from another dentist in March of 2014. 43. As a direct and proximate result of the breach of the applicable standard of medical care by Defendant LOUSIGNONT and DOES 10 n a a3 aa as 16 uw 18 19 20 a 22 23 24 23 26 20 28 1 through 5, which resulted in the failure of Plaintifé’s #10 tooth, Significant bone loss, repeated infections, headaches, mouth pain, anda fistula, the Plaintiff: 1) suffered pain and suffering in the Past that his doctors say will continue in the future, 2) loss of income in the past, present and future, 3) lost his ability to earn a Hiving in the past and future, 4) suffered loss of household services in the past and into the future, 5) incurred significant medical bills and expenses that will continue in the future, 6)extrene mental and emotional sorrow and anguish, 7) suffered physical injuries that he will carry for the rest of his life, and 8) was forced to get further operations and other medical procedures to recover the best that he could from the harm inflicted upon him. 44. The harm and losses endured by the Plaintife were the direct, proximate result of the medical errors committed by Defendant LOUSIGNONT and DOES 1 through 5. 45. Plaintiff did nothing to cause his own injuries. He was not contributorily negligent and did not assume the risk of the harm that was done to him. 46. During the course of the treatment, Defendant LOUSIGNONT and DOES 1 through 5 were acting as an agent/employee of the DOES 1 through 5 and Defendant NADIC and were providing dental services to the Plaintifé within the scope of that agency/employnent. 47. As a consequence of Defendants’ and each of their action and inaction, Defendants caused damages to NORIK in a unknown amount, but greater than $10,000.00. a5 a0 a a2 a3 “ as 36 a 38 as 20 a 22 23 24 25 26 2 28 48. Due to the necessity of Plaintiff to retain THE WASIELENSKT LAW FIRM, LTD., to prosecute this action, and for violation of certain statutory provisions described herein this cause of action, Plaintiff is entitled to reasonable Attorney's fees therefore. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Negligence ~ Dental Malpractice) 49. Plaintiff repeats and realieges by reference each and every allegation contained in Paragraphs 1 through 48, and incorporates the same by reference as though fully set forth herein. 50. Defendants LOUSIGNONT, DOES 1 through 5 and each of them did not do what a reasonable, ordinary dentist would do treating the Plaintiff, Their treatment deviated from the appropriate standard of care during the procedures performed on the Plaintiff on May 1, 2012, June 14, 2012, July S, 2012 and March 12, 2013, 51. Due to their deviation from the appropriate standard of care, Plaintiff’s #10 tooth failed due to significant bone loss, a hole extending through the side of the #10 tooth and into the adjacent bone, a metal post extending through the side of the #10 tooth and into the adjacent bone, and a fistula. 52. Defendant LOUSIGNONT, and DOES 1 through 5 performed Dental Malpractice, the failure on the pazt of this dentist to exercise the degree of care, diligence and skill ordinarily exercised by dentists in good standing in the community in which he or they practice as defined by NRS 414.004 and NRS 631.075 (see Exhibit 1 - Affidavit of Merit from Dr. Elliot Hoffman, pps). a1 10 Fry 2 a u a5 16 av Fry 19 20 aa 2 aa 24 2s 26 21 28 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Vicarious Liability) 53. Plaintiff repeats and realleges by reference each and every allegation contained in Paragraphs 1 through 48, and incorporates the same by reference as though fully set forth herein. 54. Through information and belief, Defendant LOUSIGNONT and DOES 1 through 5 knew of the dental malpractice, knew of the omissions and concealment of the evidence of dental malpractice from Plaintiff, and knew of the terrible condition Plaintiff’s #10 tooth. 55. Defendant ROE 6, hereinafter referred to as NADIC NETWORK or NADIC, is the employer of Defendant LOUSIGNONT, and is the dental Practice entity which hired Defendant LOUSIGNONT or the other DOES 1 through 5 previously named in this Anended Complaint at all relevant dates mentioned within this Amended Complaint. 56. ROES 7 through 10, all, or any one or more of them are also the employer(s) of Defendant LOUSIGNONT, or are owners of the dental Practice entities, including Defendant NADIC which hired Defendant LOUSIGNONT or the other DOES 1 through 5 previously named in this Amended Complaint at all relevant dates mentioned within it, 57. In the process of committing dental malpractice, Defendant TOUSIGNONT and DOES 1 through 5 and all or any of them performed in such a manner to further their, his, ner and Defendant NADIC’s interest and that interest that is so inextricably intertwined with his, her or their service to Defendant NADIC and ROES 7 through 10, the dental malpractice does not break the employment relationship so n12- 10 ua 12 as uu as 16 a as as 20 aa 2 2a 24 2s 26 ar 28 as to release Defendant NADIC and ROES 7 through 10 fron responsibility for LOUSIGNONT’s and the other DOES 1 through 5 conduct when he or they performed dental malpractice on Plaintif#. 58. That at the time of the treatment performed on the Plaintiff Jon May 1, 2012, June 14, 2012, July 5, 2012 and March 12, 2013 by Pefendant LOUSIGNOWT and DOES 1 through 5, each Defendant was acting within the scope of his employment and agency with the other Defendant DOES, Defendant NADIC and the other Defendant ROES. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (Intentional Spoliation of Evidence) 59. Plaintifé repeats and realleges by reference each and every allegation contained in Paragraphs 1 through 48, and 55 - 56, and incorporates the same by reference as though fully set forth herein. 60. Defendant LOUSIGNONT and DOES 1 through 5 and all or any of them onitted making any statements to Plaintiff of the evidence they knew would support an allegation or complaint of dental malpractice against Defendant LOUSIGNONT or DOES 1 through 5 on all the dates in which Plaintiff received dental treatment. 61. In February of 2014, when Plaintiff requested his medical records from Defendant LOUSIGNONT, Defendant LOUSIGNONT intentionally Provided 48 pages, knowing or should have knowing that only 12 of the 48 pages contained relevant and legible dental record information. 62. In April of 2014, when Plaintiff again requested additional medical records and answers about his treatment from Defendant TOUSTGNONT, Defendant LOUSIGNONT referred Plaintiff to his attorney. ot a0 u 2 a3 u as 16 a Fry 19 20 a 2 23 a 25 26 21 28 63. Defendant LOUSIGNONT’s counsel, a different lawyer from his first attorney, for an extended period of time, would not provide a response to Plaintiff’s questions or demands and eventually replied that Defendant LOUSIGNONT never provided any treatment to Plaintiff; delivering this response on or about July 3, 2024. 64. As of this date, Plaintiff cannot find certain medical records regarding his procedures, in his medical files or in his insurance company’s files, as they have either been intentionally concealed from him, from the insurance company, destroyed, or made illegible by Defendant LOUSIGNONT, Defendant NADIC, DOES 1 through 5, ROES 7 through 10 or any or all of them. 65. Pursuant to NRS 47.250 Defendant LOUSIGNONT, DOES 1 through 5, Defendant NADIC, ROES 7 through 10 and all or any of them willfully suppressed the documents, evidence and treatment records from Plaintiff with the intent of precluding Plaintiff from discovering the dental malpractice committed by these Defendants until after the running of the statute of limitations. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Fraudulent Concealment) 66. Plaintiff repeats and realleges by reference each and every allegation contained in Paragraphs 1 through 48, 55 - 56, and 59 - 65, and incorporates the same by reference as though fully set forth herein. 67. Defendant LOUSIGNONT, DOES 1 through 5, Defendant NADIC, and ROES 7 through 10 always concealed from Plaintiff the drilling of the a 10 a az 1B aa as 16 a 18 19 20 a 22 23 24 25 26 21 28 hole through Plaintiff's #10 tooth and about 10 mn into the adjacent bone, the placement of a post through Plaintiff’s #10 tooth and about 10 mm into the adjacent bone and that these certain acts performed on Plaintiff by Defendant LOUSIGNONT and DOES 1 through 5 constitute dental malpractice. 68. On May 1, 2012, June 14, 2012, July 5, 2012 and March 12, 2013, Defendant LOUSIGNOWT and DOES 1 through § and all or any of them made intentional misrepresentations as to the character, suitability, efficacy and duration of the dental work he or they Performed on Plaintiff regarding Plaintiff’s #10 tooth. 69. On February 28, 2014, Defendant LOUSIGNONT prepared and gave to Plaintiff through Plaintiff's agent, medical records he knew were either illegible, incomplete or both and refused to provide Additional records or legible records at any later time. 70. Representations made by Defendant LOUSIGNONT, Defendant NADIC and the DOE and ROE defendants on May 1, 2012, gune 14, 2012, July 5, 2012 and March 12, 2013, regarding the quality of care Plaintiff received were false. 71. Defendant LOUSIGNONT, Defendant NADIC and the DOE and ROE defendants on May 1, 2012, June 14, 2012, July 5, 2012 and March 12, 2013 omitted telling Plaintiff and never acknowledged to Plaintift the vastly reduced durability of the structure in the #10 tooth, the 10 mm too deep hole, the presence of a metal post insertion through a Perforation in Plaintit#’s tooth and inserted into Plaintift’s bone, the fistula, the probability of infection and other dental nas. a0 n 2 a3 u as 16 a 18 19 20 a1 2 23 24 25 26 a 28 malpractice which constitutes intentional concealment of important and material facts about Plaintiff’s dental treatment. 72. Defendant LOUSIGNONT, Defendant NADIC and DOES and ROES and each of them knew the statements, and the omissions and concealment of the true nature of the dental work performed on Plaintiff, listed above herein that were made to NORIK regarding his teeth and dental work they performed on his teeth weze all false representations. 73. The named Defendants and the DOB and ROR defendants, and each of them intended for Plaintiff to rely on their statements, their omissions, and their concealments because they knew that if they told him the true condition of the dental malpractice, NORIK would never have waited to file this dental malpractice action and never would have waited to receive corrective dental work. 74, The named Defendants and DOE and ROE defendants, and each of them intended for NORIK to rely on their statements, omissions and concealments because they thought that if enough time passed by, and NORIK did not find out about their dental malpractice within a certain period of time, NORIK may think that he would be precluded from filing this action, due to the lapse of the relevant statute of Limitations for dental malpractice. 78. NORIK relied on the statements made by Defendant LOUSIGNON?, Defendant NADIC and the other Defendants and he did not file this action until February of 2015, after he realized the extent of the malpractice, after he was explained about the omissions and concealments and how all of the damages he received are proximately Te 10 a 12 a 14 a5 16 a 18 19 20 a 22 23 28 2s 26 20 28 caused by this malpractice committed by Defendant LOUSIGNONT and the DOE Defendants that were falsely represented, omitted and concealed. 76. Plaintiff justifiably relied on these Defendants’ false statements identified herein, when he accepted the dental work and did not receive additional dental work to fix his fistula and the structure in his #10 tooth immediately. These statements, omissions and concealments played a material and substantial part in leading Plaintiff to adopt his course of action and delay his treatment. 77. During the period of time from May of 2012 to March of 2014, Plaintif£ did not know fraudulent concealment had been perpetrated. 78. When he first discovered, in March of 2014 that he was the victim of dental malpractice, he attempted to receive assistance fron Defendant LOUSTGNONT, without success. 79. In July of 2014, Defendant LOUSIGNONT continued to deny and continued to conceal that he performed services for NORIK, and refused to help NORIK, which prolonged the period of NORIK’s suffering and increased the extent of his suffering. 80. NORIK had a fistula in his sinus for over 2 years, which resulted in infection, and other significant damages that he would not have suffered if Defendant LOUSIGNONT, Defendant NADIC and the DOE and ROE defendants or any of them were just honest and open with him about the dental malpractice performed on Plaintiff. 81. Due to Defendants’ false statements and NORIK’s reliance thereon, he suffered significant damage in an amount greater than $10,000.00; to be proven at trial. ae 10 a 2 a3 u 18 16 a 1 as 20 a 22 23 24 25 26 2 20 82. By doing the acts complained of herein, Defendants acted Jwith oppression, fraud or malice towards Plaintiff. Defendants, by the acts alleged herein, intended to cause injury to Plaintiff and engaged in despicable conduct with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights of Plaintiff. ‘The above described conduct subjected Plaintiff to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of her Tights. Because of the despicable and egregious conduct of Defendants, Plaintiff is entitled to and does hereby demand punitive or exemplary damages in a sum to be proved at trial sufficient to punish and deter Defendant LOUSIGNONT, Defendant NADIC and the other DOE and ROE Defendants from acting in this manner in the future. 83. That it has become necessary for Plaintiff to retain THE WASTELEWSKI LAW FIRM, LTD., to prosecute this action, and therefore is entitled to reasonable attorney's fees therefore. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants as set forth herein for: 1, General damages according to proof, in an amount greater than $10,000.00; 2. Special damages according to proof; 3. Punitive damages according to proof; 4. For statutory damages as to be determined at trial. 5. Prejudgment interest, as provided by law; 6. Attorney’s fees and costs of suit, as provided by law: 7. A declaration that the treatment evidence from records willfully suppressed by Defendant would be adverse if produced; and -18- io ua a2 3 u as 16 uv 19 20 a1 22 23 2a 25 26 a 28 8. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. Dated this 3™ day of March, 2015 THE WASIELEWSKI LAW FIRM, LTD. /s/ Andrew Wasielewski By ANDREW WASTELEWSRI, ESO. Nevada Bar #6161 8275 S. Eastern Ave. #200-818 fas Vegas, NV 89123 Attorney for Plaintifé STATE OF COLORADO COUNTY OF ARAPAHOE ) NORIK AKOPYAN, being first duly sworn, deposes and says: That I am a Plaintiff in the above entitled action; that I have read the foregoing VERIFIED COMPLAINT, and I know the contents thereof; that the same is true of my knowledge, except for those matters therein stated on information and belief, and as to those matters, that I believe them to be true. <—y WORK “RKoPYaN SUBSCRIBED and SWORN to before Qovathea 7 Aerio) me this 3 day of Marche 2015 BSI DORCTHEA a STERWOOD PUBLIC swage OE COLORADO NOTARY ib 2oosscas715, My Commission Exes September 26, 016 cic 10 11 12 13 14 158 16 7 18 19 20 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 BXHIBITS -10- 10 aL 12 13. 14 15 16 vv 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 AFFT ANDREW WASIELEWSKI, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 6161 THE WASIELEWSKI LAW FIRM, LID. 8275 S. Eastern Avenue, Suite 200-818 Las Vegas, NV 89123 Phone: (702) 521-1443 Fax: (702) 548-9684 Attorney for Plaintiff DISTRICT COURT CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA case No. NORIK AKOPYAN, Dept No. Plaintife, vs. ADAM LOUSIGNONT, DOES 1 through 5 | | and ROES 6 through 10. bitration Exemption Claimed: ction for Dental Malpractice Defendants. ursuant to NRS 41A.004 AFFIDAVIT OF MERIT OF ELLIOT HOFFMAN, DDS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’ S COMPLAINT FOR DENTAL MALPRACTICE COMPLAINT FOR DENTAL MALPRACTICE ELLIOT HOFFMAN, DDS., deposes, says, declares and signs this affidavit in accordance with NRS 53.045: 1. I am duly authorized to practice dentistry in the State of Arizona since 1978 and I have been a licensed dentist since 1952 and in good standing. 2. This Affidavit is made in support of Plaintiff's Verified Complaint for Dental Malpractice. Statements set forth herein are true and correct and I am confident to testify as a witness in the event I am called to testify in this matter. In those cases I believe things to be true and correct, I will state that I know through information and belief I know this to be true. 10 uM 12 13 4a as 1 v0 18 l 2 21 22 2 2 2 26 2 28 3. My post graduate education summary is as follows Pre Dental: University of Toronto D.D.S.: University of Toronto Orthodontics: Dewey School of Orthodontia - N.Y.c. Post Graduate Studies: Internship under Prof. Of Prosthodontics, U.of T Root Canal Therapy - Boston Cephalometrics - Texas Periodontal Therapy ~ Princeton Root Canal Therapy - Phoenix Periodontal Therapy - Las Angeles T.M.J. - Princeton Herpes Simplex - HIS T.M.J. Syndrome - HIS Surgery for Third Molars - Baltimore Dewey School of Orthodontics ~ New York City 4. T am a medical dental expert who practices and has practiced in areas that are substantially similar to the type of practice engaged in at the time of the alleged malpractice. 5. I have had staff positions in three different hospitals in the area of dental surgery; North York Branson Hospital, Toronto Mount Sinai Hospital, and Phoenix Doctor’s Hospital 6. T have qualified as a dental expert on many occasions. Recently, I have testified in as an expert at trial or by deposition 1 1 13 14 as v 18 19 20 at 22 23 24 28 26 21 28 in the following matters within the preceding 4 years, in at least 20 cases acting as an expert for the various insurance companies 7. T have written the following publication, “Dry Socket, Myths and Facts”. 8. I have reviewed the following exhibits, data and information regarding the dental treatment of the Plaintiff in this matter: all of the dental records of the Plaintiff, the insurance statements of benefits provided to Plaintiff, and I believe, all of the x-rays and images taken of the Plaintiff by various providers since May 1, 2012 to the best of my knowledge. 8. I have an opinion regarding the Defendant's dental treatment of Plaintiff in this matter and I have the expert dental opinion, to @ reasonable degree of medical certainty, that Defendant LOUSIGNONT’s dental treatment of Plaintiff is a failure of Defendant LOUSIGNONT to exercise the degree of care, diligence and skill ordinarily exercised by dentists in good standing in the communities within the County of Clark, State of Nevada 10. After the root canal was performed on the tooth, and, in attempting to clear the canal, Defendant accidentally went off-line and perforated the side of the tooth, drilling a hole of about 10 mm into the adjacent bone. Instead of admitting to the patient that a mistake had been made in the Plaintiff’s care and treatment, and that there is a hole in the adjacent bone of the #10 tooth, Defendant had continued on as if nothing happened! He not only concealed the 10 un 12 13. a7 18 19 20 aL 22 23 24 25 26 28 mistake, but Defendant also put a post into the (perforated) canal, which also extended into the adjacent bone About 10 mm!! 11. Further, I understand that there is a denial on the part of Defendant LOUSIGNONT that he performed any dental work on the Plaintiff. 12. Regardless of his denial, I have reviewed the Statements of Benefits from Plaintiff’s insurance company which states that adam housignont billed for and received payment for dental procedures that correspond to a post and core process on Plaintiff’s #10 tooth, regarding the procedures that Defendant LOUSIGNONT performed on Plaintiff on May 1, 2012 and a crown process on Plaintiff’s #10 tooth, regarding the procedures that Defendant LOUSIGNONT performed on Plaintiff on June 14, 2012. 13. Additionally, I have reviewed 48 pages of charts, of which 12 pages were legible and I confirm that Adam Lousignont charted that these processes were performed on Plaintiff on these dates. 14, Therefore, I am of the expert opinion, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that either Dr. Adam Lousignont or someone working for him, someone working for his employer, or someone or other people working with Dr. Adam Lousignont or his employer committed dental malpractice on Plaintiff. 15. I believe Plaintiff has Plaintiff has had numerous medical Problems since the insertion of the post in the #10 tooth area by Defendant LOUSIGNONT, including severe headaches, eye watering, a large food pocket and lack of good vision. 10 ua 12 13 ry as 16 u 18 as 20 a 22 23 24 25 26 2 28 16. It is my expert opinion to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that the malpractice performed on Plaintiff by Defendant LOUSIGNONT or any of the DOE or ROE defendants proximately caused these symptoms in Plaintiff. 17. There is a significant amount of bone loss in the area of the| perforation, and it is my expert opinion, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that this bone loss is due to the perforation of the #10 tooth. 18. On March 21, 2014, Plaintiff had pain and a low grade infection in his #10 tooth, for which he received pain medicine and antibiotics and it is my expert opinion to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that this treatment was required because of damages proximately caused by the Defendants’ dental malpractice. 19. It is my expert opinion, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, Plaintiff’s #10 tooth is in fact hopeless and it needed to be removed as a direct consequence of the dental malpractice Plaintiff suffers and explained in this affidavit. 20. On November 10, 2014, noticing that Plaintiff had a sinus tract with infection and a large amount of bone loss all surrounding Plaintiff’s #10 tooth, another dentist performed an atraumatic extraction, cleaned out the infection in that area and placed a bone graft in the area due to the large amount of bone loss. 21. It is my expert opinion to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that this treatment in November was also required because of damages proximately caused by the Defendants’ dental malpractice 10 1 12 13 14 15 16 a7 ae 19 20 24 25 26 27 28 22. Defendant LOUSIGNONT, DOES 1 through 5 and all or any of them, committed dental malpractice pursuant to NRS 631.075 when he and they drilled a hole into Plaintifs’s #10 tooth that went through the tooth and into the surrounding bone as much as 10 mm more than it should have. 23. Defendant LOUSIGNONT, DOES 1 through 5 and all or any of them, committed dental malpractice pursuant to NRS 631.075 when he and they placed a metal post into Plaintiff’s #10 tooth in such a manner that it extended into adjacent bone as much as 10 mm. 24. Defendant LOUSIGNONT, DOES 1 through 5 and all or any of them, committed dental malpractice pursuant to NRS 631.075 when he and they and concealed this information from NORIK on May 1, 2012. 28. Defendant LOUSIGNONT, DOES 1 through 5 and all or any of them, committed dental malpractice pursuant to NRS 631.075 when he and they instructed his and their agent to communicate to NORIK that Pefendant LOUSIGNONT and DOES 1 through 5 never performed any dental work on Plaintiff and who communicated that false statement to Plaintiff on guly 3, 2014. 26. On May 1, 2012, June 14, 2012, July 5, 2012 and March 12, 2013, when Defendant LOUSIGNONT did work on or near Plaintiff's #10 tooth, Defendant LOUSIGNONT, DOES 1 through 5 and all or any of them, knew or should have known that the hole drilled into Plaintiff’s #10 tooth negligently went through the tooth and into the surrounding bone, but concealed this information from Plaintiff, 27, On May 1, 2012, June 14, 2012, July 5, 2012 and March 12, 2013, when Defendant LOUSIGNONT did work on or near Plaintiff’s #10 3 |[tooth, Defendant LOUSIGNONT, DOES 1 through 5 and all or any of them, 4 |/knew or should have known that the metal post placed into Plaintiff's #10 tooth went through the tooth and into the surrounding bone, but concealed this information from Plaintif£. 28. On May 1, 2012, June 14, 2012, July 5, 2012 and March 12, 2013, when Defendant LOUSIGNONT did work on or near Plaintiff's #10 tooth, Defendant LOUSIGNONT, DOES 1 through 5 and all or any of them, a1 |[Knew or should have known that Defendant LOUSIGNONT’s and the DOES 12 |jnegligent acts would cause bone loss, headaches, pain, eye problems, 13 1] #10 tooth loss, infection, embarrassment, humiliation and fistula, *4 \/but concealed this information from Plaintiff. 29. During the Plaintiff’s treatment on May 1, 2012, June 14, 16 2012, July 5, 2012 and March 12, 2013, Defendant LOUSIGNONT and DOES 7 1 through 5 and all of them owed a duty to the Plaintifé to perform 18 ag |[the treatment within an acceptable standard of medical care within 20 |[the medical community and Defendant LOUSIGNONT and DOES 1 through 5 ?1 ||breached this standard of care by drilling a hole through the side of % /Plaintitt’s #10 tooth and into the surrounding bone, placing a metal % \Ipost through the #10 tooth and into surrounding bone, causing the * Wouaintitt physical injury. 7 30. Defendant LOUSIGNONT, DOES 1 through 5 and all or any of them concealed information from Plaintiff of his or their negligence 29 ||/ dental malpractice that occurred on May 1, 2012, June 14, 2012, 10 1 12 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 21 28 July 5, 2012 and March 12, 2013 until Plaintiff learned of the dental malpractice / negligence from another dentist in March of 2014. 31. As a direct and proximate result of the breach of the applicable standard of medical care by Defendant LOUSIGNONT and DOES i through 5, which resulted in the failure of Plaintiff’s #10 tooth, significant bone loss, repeated infections, headaches, mouth pain, and a fistula, the Plaintiff: 1) suffered pain and suffering in the past that his doctors say will continue in the future, 2) loss of income in the past, present and future, 3) lost his ability to earn a living in the past and future, 4) suffered loss of household services in the past and into the future, 5) incurred significant medical bills and expenses that will continue in the future, 6)extreme mental and emotional sorrow and anguish, 7) suffered physical injuries that he will carry for the rest of his life, and 8) was forced to get further operations and other medical procedures to recover the best that he could from the harm inflicted upon him. 32. The harm and losses endured by the Plaintiff were the direct, proximate result of the medical errors committed by Defendant LOUSIGNONT and DOES 1 through 5. ae Mt 10 1 Fry 3 uu as 16 u ae 1s 20 2 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 33. Plaintiff did nothing to cause his own injuries. He was not contributorily negligent and did not assume the risk of the harm that was done to bim. 34. I declare under penaity of perjury under the law of the State of Nevada that the foregoing is true and correct. THIS AFFIANT FURTHER SAYETH NAUGHT Executed on this 17 day of February, 2015

You might also like