G. Robert Evans, DMD, who practices at Groton Wellness in Groton, Massachusetts, has been sued for fraud and negligence by a former patient and her husband. In 2012, when the woman was pregnant, she consulted Evans for a routine cleaning. (Note: To preserve the couple’s privacy, I refer to them as Mr. and Ms. B.) The complaint alleges:
- Evans advised Ms. B that one of her front teeth was poisoning her developing baby and should be extracted.
- The tooth may not have needed extracting and probably could have been saved by other dental methods that Evans falsely claimed were toxic.
- After the extraction, Evans performed a bone graft without Ms. B’s consent and without prescribing antibiotics, even though an infection was present. He also placed several herbal products in her mouth, one of which was comfrey, a substance that should never be administered to pregnant women.
- Even though the infection worsened, Evans refused to prescribe an antibiotic and refused to see Ms. B when she returned with symptoms of infection.
- Two operations were required to remove the infected bone, but the infection did so much damage that it is unlikely Ms. B can ever have an implant. She also sustained nerve damage that has made her smile permanently crooked.
In 2008, the Massachusetts Board of Registration in Dentistry received a complaint from a patient whom Evans and his wife (also a dentist) treated in 2003 and 2004, when they were part of another dental group. The patient reported that Evans performed cavitation surgery four times, two of which included unnecessary extractions of root-canal treated teeth. In 2010, Evans signed a consent agreement under which he agreed to serve on probation for two years and take continuing medical education courses in risk management and in diagnosis and treatment planning. The agreement said he had practiced outside the scope of dentistry and had failed to perform and/or document certain procedures when performing oral surgery. Quackwatch has additional details about Evans and his clinic.
THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
MIDDLESEX SS |
SUPERIOR COURT
|
|
|
Ms B &
DR. G. ROBERT EVANS,
|
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) |
Civil Docket # ___________ |
COMPLAINT
NOW COME the Plaintiffs, Mr and Ms. B, by and through their attorneys, Hage Hodes, P.A., and complain against individual defendants, Dr. G. Robert Evans, Dr. Terrance Shutts, and Groton Dental Wellness Spa, LLP, as follows:
1. Plaintiff Ms. B is an individual who resides at [redacted], Milford, Massachusetts 01757.
2. Plaintiff Mr. B is an individual who also resides at [redacted], Milford, Massachusetts 01757 and is Ms. B’s husband.
3. Dr. G. Robert Evans is a dentist license to practice dentistry in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. His usual place of business is Groton Dental Wellness Center, LLP, 495 Main Street, Groton, Massachusetts 01450.
4. Dr. Terrance Shutts is likewise a dentist licensed to practice dentistry in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. His usual place of business is likewise Groton Dental Wellness Center, LLP, 495 Main Street, Groton, Massachusetts 014501
5. Groton Dental Wellness Center, LLP is a Massachusetts Professional Limited Liability Partnership with a principal office of 495 Main Street, Groton, Massachusetts 01450. Dr. Evans is its Resident Agent.
FACTS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS
6. On or about August 5, 2013, Ms. B went to Groton Dental Wellness for a routine cleaning.
7. While she was there, Dr. Evans ordered an x-ray which showed that her number 7 tooth was abscessed with a fistula.
8. Dr. Evans informed her that this tooth needed to be extracted as soon as possible. Ms. B was quite upset by this as the number 7 tooth is a front tooth.
9. Ms. B previously had an apicoectomy on this tooth and inquired whether she could have the apicoectomy redone.
10. Dr. Evans informed her that apicoectomys, like root canals, in his opinion, should not be performed as they leave toxins in the body that effect whole body health.
11. Ms. B was in her second trimester of pregnancy at the time and Dr. Evans told her that her toxic tooth was slowly poisoning her baby in utero.
12. Ms. B had previously seen Dr. Evans on or about April 23, 2013 to discuss treatment to a different tooth, a molar, tooth number 3.1
1Dr. Evan’s record incorrectly states that this visit was about tooth number 7. Prior to the 8/5/13 appointment, tooth number 7 had been asymptomatic. Dr. Evans also wrote this note almost a year later, after Ms. B requested her medical records in connection with this action.
13. Dr. Evans explained to Ms. B his stance on “toxic root canals” at that appointment.
14. During her consultation regarding tooth number 3, Dr. Evans told her that rather than taking antibiotics, she should place garlic cloves on the gum above the infected tooth. She followed his instructions and when she sought a second opinion, her gums were burned from the garlic and still infected.
15. Dr. Evans was aware at Ms. B’s August 5th appointment that she had chosen to have her number three tooth extracted by an oral surgeon rather than him.
16. When Ms. B told Dr. Evans that she would like to do the same with tooth number seven, or at least get a second opinion as to whether extraction was really necessary, he chastised her. He told her that because her previous dental work on tooth number seven contained mercury, that he had to be the one to do the extraction as he is specially trained in proper removal of mercury to avoid the mercury leaching and “further poisoning her and her baby.” Dr. Evans said that a typical oral surgeon would not have this training and would put her and her baby at risk.
17. Dr. Evans also informed Ms. B that following the extraction he would need to do a bone graft to insure that she could have an implant in the future.
18. Ms. B was not comfortable getting a bone graft while pregnant.
19. Dr. Evans told her that if she did not have the bone graft at the same time as the extraction she would not be able to have an implant.
20. Ms. B explained to Dr. Evans that when her number three tooth was extracted elsewhere, her oral surgeon told her that she did not have to have the bone grafting done at that time and that she could have it after her pregnancy.
21. Dr. Evans told Ms. B that her oral surgeon’s advice difference from his because they treated a molar but that for a front tooth it had to be done at the same time.
22. Ms. B told him she would “think about” the bone grafting.
23. Ms. B returned on August 7, 2013 to have her future partial denture “shaded” ( color made to match other teeth.)
24. While there, she spoke at length with the dental hygienist regarding her concerns about having bone grafting done while pregnant and asked for the literature that comes with the Novabone (grafting material) packet. The hygienist provided this information. While reading the pamphlet, Ms. B learned that Novabone “has not been clinically tested for use in pregnant women” so she did not want to use it.
25. On August 22, 2013, scared by Dr. Evans that her tooth was poisoning her baby, Ms. B returned to Dr. Evans’ office to have it extracted.
26. She informed him that she had read the Novabone leaflet and that she did not want the bone grafting done. Dr. Evans gave her an informed consent form and she indicated, in writing, on the form “I would prefer not to have the bone graft.”
27. She was asked to initial next to “I have been informed of possible alternate methods of treatment (if any),” and Dr. Evans had wrote in “none viable – patient wants the tooth out.”
28. Ms. B explained that was incorrect and that she wanted the tooth saved.
29. Dr. Evans again stated that was not possible because it was poisoning her and her baby which is why he wrote “none viable.”
30. Ms. B told the dental hygienist that she was refusing the bone graft.
31. The dental hygienist told her that she had to speak to the doctor about that.
32. When Ms. B told Dr. Evans that she was refusing the bone graft, he told her that she could not refuse it. He said that he would not do the extraction unless she agreed to the bone graft. Dr. Evans also said that without the bone graft done at that time she could never have an implant.
33. Ms. B suggested that she would go back to her oral surgeon instead.
34. Dr. Evans told Ms. B that she should not go anywhere else for the extraction because the other doctors are not trained to deal with her mercury filling and will expose her and her baby to more toxins.
35. Dr. Evans told Ms. B that he uses the bone grafting material all the time, that it is perfectly safe, and he would allow his daughter to use it if she were pregnant.
36. Dr. Evans essentially told Ms. B that the only safe choice for her baby was to let him extract the tooth and perform the bone graft.
3 7. Ms. B told Dr. Evans that if she could not get the tooth extracted without the bone graft then she would not get the tooth extracted.
38. Dr. Evans told her that if she did not have it extracted, she was further poisoning her baby with infection.
39. Ms. B also told Dr. Evans that she wanted Lidocaine to be used as her anesthetic because it is a Class B drug (regarding safety for use in pregnancy) and approved by her Obstetrician (“OB”).
40. Despite agreeing, Dr. Evans, against her wishes, used Carbocaine which is a Class C drug and not on the approved list from her OB.
41. Ms. B would not have consented to the use of Carbocaine.
42. Dr. Evans also placed various “herbal remedies” in Ms. B’s mouth without her consent. Ms. B had been very adamant that any substance used in her treatment had to first be approved by her OB. Dr. Evans knew Ms. B was not consenting to any substances not previously discussed.
43. Even though she did not consent to the administration of these herbal remedies, Dr. Evans required Ms. B to purchase the bottles because “he had opened them.” When she complained, Dr. Evans told her the supplements were “holistic and fine” and that again, “he would give it to his daughter if she were pregnant.”
44. These herbal remedies, seven in total, contained ingredients that were unsafe for use in general, unsafe for use in pregnancy and that contained ingredients to which Dr. Evans knew Ms. B was allergic or intolerant.
45. In particular, one remedy contained comfrey which medical literature states should never be taken orally under any circumstances and should not even be applied to the skin when pregnant.
46. Ms. B informed her OB after this procedure who told her to immediately stop taking all of these substances.
47. Further, Dr. Evans never used his alleged mercury protocol on her extraction. He had told her at a minimum she would require IV vitamin C and oxygen and neither were provided.
48. The only reason Ms. B let Dr. Evans do the extraction is because he had scared her that going anywhere else would poison her and her baby because of the mercury.
49. Dr. Evans also falsely advised Ms. B that she should not wear her retainer claiming the plastic and metal from it were leaching into her mouth at night poisoning her and her baby. He said that she and her baby were likely to get “heavy metal poisoning” from the “old” retainer.
50. He instead offered to have his staff make a “non-toxic” retainer. As Ms. B could not afford it, she instead stopped wearing the old retainer, as instructed to protect herself and her baby. That combined with the failed extraction have caused Ms. B’s teeth to shift such that she is now likely to require braces.
51. Ms. B was a vulnerable patient. She had recently suffered two miscarriages and was hoping to successfully carry this pregnancy to term. Dr. Evans was aware of this fact as it was on her intake paperwork.
52. She also told Dr. Evans about her many allergies and that she suffered from POTS (Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome).
53. Dr. Evans knew or should have known that Ms. B was at greater risk of infection and rejection of the bone graft because of her pregnancy and her POTS.
54. He knew that she also suffered symptoms of other diseases, later to be diagnosed and that she was desperate for a cure. He used this information to convince Ms. B that she was suffering the effects of toxic prior dental work.
55. Dr. Evans never prescribed Ms. B antibiotics before or after her surgery.
56. Ms. B returned to Dr. Evans’ office on September 6, 2013 to have her sutures removed.
57. She reported to the dental hygienist that she was concerned about the discoloration in the gums around her extraction site and stated that she thought she had an infection. She asked to be seen by Dr. Evans.
58. The dental hygienist stated that she would talk to Dr. Evans. The dental hygienist came back and said that Dr. Evans (without seeing Ms. B) said that she was fine and that the gum was just discolored and healing slower because she was pregnant.
59. Ms. B stated again that she wanted to see Dr. Evans. He refused to see her.
60. Ms. B said she would wait in the waiting area until Dr. Evans was free but he never came out. She left and called the office again and described her pain but was told that Dr. Evans did not need to see her and would not see her.
61. On September 13, 2013, Ms. B again called Groton Dental Wellness Spa regarding her potential infection.
62. This time, she was allowed to see Dr. Shutts.
63. Dr. Shutts confirmed that Ms. B had an active infection but told her the cure was to “rinse better.” He irrigated the gum and gave her a syringe to rinse with.
64. Ms. B requested that Dr. Shutts prescribe her an antibiotic but he refused.
65. Dr. Shutts said that antibiotics were bad for her unborn baby. He said that they would cross the placenta and would hurt the baby.
66. Ms. B told Dr. Shutts that she had her OB’s permission to take antibiotics but Dr. Shutts still refused.
67. When Ms. B left, she called her OB’s office and explained what transpired. Her OB’ s office said that if she had an infection, particularly an abscess, she needed to be on antibiotics. They offered to call Dr. Shutts or Dr. Evans to go over the approved antibiotics list but neither dentist was willing to speak with her OB as they were adamant that they would not prescribe antibiotics to a pregnant patient.
68. Following this consult with her OB, Ms. B repeatedly called Groton Dental Wellness Spa.
69. The reception staff would not let her speak to the doctor regarding antibiotics. They hung up on her and even said they would not pass along a message that she called.
70. Ms. B requested Dr. Shutts’ email and emailed him the list of approved antibiotics from her OB. Following sending this email, Ms. B received a return phone call from Groton Dental Wellness Spa’s reception saying that Dr. Shutts would not be changing his mind about antibiotics.
71. At that point, because of Dr. Evans’ and Dr. Shutts’ failure to treat Ms. B’s infection, she resorted to treatment from her prior oral surgeon who immediately prescribed her 500 mg of Amoxicillin.
72. At this point her untreated infection had grown to 9 mm x 9 mm.
73. On September 20, 2013, Ms. B required another oral surgery to remove the infection, including removal of the bone graft that had been performed by Dr. Evans.
74. The infection still did not fully heal and returned in December 2013.
75. In March 2014 Ms. B required a second oral surgery to remove the persistent infection.
76. Ms. B experienced further complications. She developed a hematoma and suffered nerve damage that has made her smile permanently crooked. She suffered excruciating pain following this surgery. Her surgeon needed to put collagen membrane in her gum because the scar tissue was so bad.
77. When the failed bone graft site was still bothering her at the end of April 2014, Londonderry Oral Surgery suspected that she may have Osteomyelitis. Ms. B required a CT Scan to rule it out.
78. At this point, even if she could obtain a new bone graft, Ms. B is unlikely to ever be able to have an implant as the untreated infection destroyed her bone.
79. Instead, she is a young woman in her 20’s who is missing one of her front teeth. This is humiliating to her. Temporary retainer style dentures aggravate the area that has been chronically infected. Her teeth are shifting into this empty space and she will likely require braces in the future or suffer from severely deformed teeth. Further, she has to remove the partial denture in order to eat. This is lifestyle limiting and humiliating.
80. Ms. B’s husband had to take time off of work to assist Ms. B following each of her surgeries. She lost time with her young baby. Her baby was exclusively breast fed for six months and would not take a bottle. Her baby would scream and cry the entire time Ms. B was at her appointments causing great stress on her and her husband. She experienced extreme pain and suffering over a period of years as well as permanent impairment to her nerves and appearance.
PROCEDURAL FACTS
81. Plaintiffs sent Defendants a demand letter pursuant to M.G.L. c. 231 § 60L on April 24, 2015.
82. Dr. Evans responded that he was not going to make a settlement offer.
83. Dr. Shutts did not respond.
84. While Plaintiffs meet the procedural requirements of §60L, this action is also filed within six months of the statute of limitations expiring and thus, Plaintiffs do not need to prove compliance.
COUNT I
Negligence
Ms. B v. Dr. Evans
85. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations in paragraphs l through 84 and incorporate them by reference as if fully set forth herein.
86. A dentist/patient relationship existed between Ms. B and Dr. Evans at all times relevant to this Complaint.
87. Dr. Evans owed a duty of care to Ms. B to exercise the degree of care and skill of the average qualified practitioner in his specialty, taking into account the advances in the profession and the medical resources available to him.
88. Dr. Evans breached his duty of care to Ms. B when he failed to exercise the degree of care and skill of the average qualified practitioner in his specialty, taking into account the advances in the profession and the medical resources available to him.
89. Dr. Evans’ breaches of the standard of care include but are not limited to:
a. Failing to prescribe an antibiotic to Ms. B;
b. Extracting a tooth that may not have needing extracting and could have been saved by other dental methods that Dr. Evans falsely claimed were toxic;
c. Performing bone grafting on Ms. B while pregnant, infected, not treated with antibiotics and while diagnosed with POTS;
d. Refusing to see Ms. B when she returned with symptoms of infection;
e. Advising Ms. B that other dental methods were toxic;
f. Advising Ms. B to stop wearing her retainer.
g. Utilizing substances on Ms. B that were contraindicated in pregnancy, generally unsafe and that she was allergic to.
90. As a direct and proximate result of Dr. Evans’ breaches of the standard of care, Ms. B suffered substantial temporary and permanent injuries and damages including but not limited to delay in the diagnosis and treatment of infection, permanent disfigurement, impairment of bodily functions, extreme pain and suffering, emotional distress, embarrassment and loss of enjoyment of life.
91. WHEREFORE, Ms. B demands judgment against Dr. Evans on Count I of this Complaint in an amount that will justly compensate her for her damages, together with interest, costs and attorneys’ fee.
COUNT II
Ms. B v. Dr. Evans Failure to Obtain Informed Consent
92. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations in paragraphs I through 91 and incorporate them by reference as if fully set forth herein.
93. Dr. Evans had a duty to disclose in a reasonable manner all significant medical information that he possessed or reasonably should have possessed that is material to an intelligent decision by the patient whether to undergo a proposed procedure.
94. Dr. Evans failed to properly inform Ms. B of her treatment options.
95. Dr. Evans falsely told Ms. B that she had to have the bone graph done at the same time as her extraction in order to ever be able to obtain an implant.
96. Dr. Evans ignored Ms. B refusal of her bone graph.
97. Dr. Evans used an anesthetic to which Ms. B had not consented.
98. Dr. Evans further used herbal substances on Ms. B without obtaining her informed consent, substances that were contraindicated in pregnancy.
99. Dr. Evans gave Ms. B false information and threats that she was a bad mother falsely claiming that she was putting the health of her baby at risk if she sought a second opinion again.
100. Implied in those statements was the entirely untrue allegation that her “bad” teeth could be at fault for her recent two miscarriages.
101. Ms. B could not give informed consent for her extraction because she was not properly informed and any consent she did give was improperly coerced with untruthful information.
102. If Ms. B had been properly informed, she would have taken a different course of action and would not have sustained the damages described herein.
103. Accordingly, Dr. Evan’s failure to inform Ms. B proximately caused Ms. B substantial temporary and permanent injuries and damages including but not limited to delay in the diagnosis and treatment of infection, permanent disfigurement, impairment of bodily functions, extreme pain and suffering, emotional distress, embarrassment and loss of enjoyment of life.
l 04. WHEREFORE Ms. B demands judgment against Dr. Evans on Count Ill of this Complaint in an amount that will justly compensate her for her damages, together with interest, costs and attorneys’ fees of this action.
COUNT III
Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress Ms. B v. Dr. Evans
105. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 104 and incorporate them by reference as if fully set forth herein.
106. Dr. Evans owed a duty of care to Ms. B.
107. Dr. Evans caused Ms. B extreme emotional distress.
108. Ms. B suffered physical harm manifested by objective symptomatology. 1 09. A reasonable person would have suffered emotional distress under the circumstances of this case.
110. In addition to the extreme emotional distress Ms. B suffered due to her own injuries, Ms. B suffered great emotional distress over Dr. Evans’ allegations that she exposed her baby (and those she lost to miscarriage) to toxic materials.
111. She suffered further emotional distress over the toxic exposure her baby did have to the bone graft material, the wrong anesthetic and the “herbal remedies” that were all applied without her consent.
112. WHEREFORE Ms. B demands judgment against Dr. Evans on Count III of this Complaint in an amount that will justly compensate her for her damages, together with interest, costs and attorneys’ fees of this action.
COUNT IV Negligence
Ms. B v. Dr. Shutts
113. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 112 and incorporate them by reference as if fully set forth herein.
114. A dentist/patient relationship existed between Ms. B and Dr. Shutts at all times relevant to this Count.
115. Dr. Shutts owed a duty of care to Ms. B to exercise the degree of care and skill of the average qualified practitioner in his specialty, taking into account the advances in the profession and the medical resources available to him.
116. Dr. Shutts breached his duty of care to Ms. B when he failed to exercise the degree of care and skill of the average qualified practitioner in his specialty, taking into account the advances in the profession and the medical resources available to him.
117. Specifically, Dr. Shutts breached his duty of care when he failed to prescribe Ms. B an antibiotic and falsely told her that no antibiotic was safe for a pregnant patient to take.
118. As a direct and proximate result of Dr. Shutts’ breaches of the standard of care, Ms. B suffered substantial temporary and permanent injuries and damages inc1uding but not limited to delay in the diagnosis and treatment of infection, permanent disfigurement, impairment of bodily functions, extreme pain and suffering, emotional distress, embarrassment and loss of enjoyment of life.
119. WHEREFORE, Ms. B demands judgment against Dr. Shutts on Count IV of this Complaint in an amount that will justly compensate her for her damages, together with interest, costs and attorneys’ fee.
COUNT V
Mr. B v. Dr. Evans and Dr. Shutts
Loss of Consortium
120. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 119 and incorporate them by reference as if fully set forth herein.
121. Mr. B is the husband of Ms. B and was her husband at all times relevant to this Complaint.
122. As the direct and proximate result of Dr. Evans’ and Dr. Shutts’ negligence, Mr. B has been and will be deprived of his wife’s full society, care, comfort, consortium and social relations.
123. In particular, Mr. B missed work caring for Ms. B and their children as Ms. B recovered from her surgeries.
124. Mr. B, like Ms. B, suffers from the change in her appearance.
125. It affects their relationship as Ms. B does not enjoy going out in public like she used to and she becomes extremely embarrassed eating out as she has to remove her partial denture.
126. WHEREFORE, Mr. B demands judgment against Dr. Evans and Dr. Shutts on Count V of this Complaint in the amount that will justly compensate him for his damages, together with interest, costs and attorneys’ fees of this action.
COUNT VI
Ms. B v. all Defendants
Violations of the Consumer Protection Act, MGL 93 A
127. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 126 and incorporate them by reference as if fully set forth herein.
128. Defendants engage in the conduct of trade or commerce.
129. Groton Dental Wellness, LLP, provides information to the public and advertises services that it knows or should know are inaccurate and deceitful. Such claims drive patients to Groton Dental Wellness, LLP out of a false fear.
130. Defendants acted in bad faith with knowledge or reason to know that their actions violated the law as Dr. Evans, manager of the LLP, was previously suspended from practicing dentistry for his false promulgations regarding root canalled teeth and other common dental practices such as using or removing mercury amalgams.
131. Further, Dr. Evans’ prior discipline also addressed his practicing medicine without a license by attempting to treat the whole body rather than just teeth.
132. Dr. Evans continued to use these seem tactics in treating Ms. B.
133. Groton Dental Wellness, LLP allowed this practice to continue and built its business model around these deceitful premises.
134. Plaintiff made a demand on Defendants at least thirty days prior to the filing of this action. Defendants did not offer settlement.
135. Ms. B is thus seeks up to three times but not less than two times her damages.
136. Ms. B is also entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees, costs and interest.
PLAINTIFFS DEMAND A JURY TRIAL ON ALL ISSUES SO TRIABLE
Respectfully submitted,
Mr. & Ms B
By and through their attorneys
HAGE HODES, P.A.
Date: April 22. 2016
By:
Kathleen A. Davidson, Esquire (BBQ #675488)
Hage Hodes, Professional Association
I1855 Elm Street
Manchester, New Hampshire 03104
(603) 668-2222
This page was posted on September 4, 2016
