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 such10
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 metalao
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 an10
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 the10
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's10
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 DOES10
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.
a5a0
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).
a110
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.
ota0
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
a10
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
Te10
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.
ae10
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
cic10
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 deposition1
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 the10
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 malpractice10
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
Mt10
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