The Maine Conspiracy

     The abuse of antibiotics is becoming a national health crisis. Antibiotics are a multi billion dollar industry and doctors are encouraged to prescribe for that reason. Bacterial resistance to antibiotics is a direct overgrowth of the overuse of those drugs. Dr. Greenwald knew that. Perhaps Dr.Jeffrey Fister did not. Mrs Prudhomme got a bill she couldn't pay from the hospital, on top of going through unnecessary hospital treatment. Dr. Greenwald suspects, Dr. Deighan and Dr. Fister put Mrs. Prudhomme in the hospital as a means of using her as bait to get the attorneys general to call their emergency hearing and immediately suspend his license for the "Safety and Welfare of the People of Maine."

Donna is a NEW patient to Dr.Shaun Dowd's office sitting in the dental chair waiting for treatment. The subject was Dentalcare and Dr. Greenwald:

Dowd: "So I tell you these things so you can decide what you want to do, okay. But, if you were my sister, or my wife, or my good friend, I'd tie you in your house before I'd let you go there.

Dowd: (to his assistant Judy Barker) "Who was your friend the dental assistant that worked there?"

Judy: "Yeah, she worked there for two days and after the second day, she told me, I quit! 'Cause he sexually assaulted her in two days."

Donna: "He sexually assaulted her?"

Judy: "She said he attacked her. That's what she told me."

Dowd: "The thing is these aren't fairy tales you know. I mean this is fact."


** Mrs. Greenwald called upon a dental assistant, Sally, who had worked for Dr. Greenwald for two days then left. Her response when asked about what Dr. Dowd and his assistant discussed:

"It couldn't be me." "No, I can't believe it! Somebody's just making up rumors." "Well, I'm in shock. They're really out to get him. "I think it's horrible!"

Dr. Dowd continued to spread the lies...

Dowd: "That's not gossip. That's the truth. I and that's documented. We've been trying for over a year to take his license away."

Donna: "Who's we? You mean area dentists?"

Dowd: "The Maine Dental Association really,. Through us. I mean we instigated it because...you must have seen his name in the paper a number of times."

Donna: "I've caught a few articles yes, but not...."

Dowd: "The different things he's done in this office, like propositioning patients, molesting, accosting..."

Donna: "He has done that?"

Dowd: "Absolutely. No question about that. Plus the kind of dentistry he does. He doesn't give two damns for the patient."


The above conversations were tape recorded for accuracy.

The ORIGINAL complaint was followed by the AMENDED Complaint, SECOND AMENDED Complaint, SUPPLEMENTAL Complaint and REVISED SECOND AMENDED Complaint, then another SUPPLEMENTAL Complaint. This strategy was used by the attorney general to keep the kettle boiling, keep the pressure on Dr. Greenwald, emotionally, psychologically and financially. And, by using the media as another tool to drive Dr. Greenwald to the brink of bankruptcy where he could no longer defend himself or continue to run his business.

 

DR. GREENWALD - EVIDENCE 1

In order to present the evidence in a sensible order I have broken it down as follows:

 

The three women involved in the sexual complaints:

(Filed 2/13/81)

Debra Candice Wallace

Jennifer Ann Watson

Barbara Jayne DeGolyer

 

 

Charges of incompetence involving the following patients:

            Lisa Burgess     filed 7/7/81

            Guy Chapman  .filed 2/13/81

            Carroll Dyer     filed 2/13/81

            Robert Evans    filed 2/13/81     Omitted from Amended

Complaint of 7/7/81, then included in Second Amended Complaint of 8/23/82, then omitted from Revised Second Amended Complaint of 1/12/83.

 

 

Attorney for the defense, Steven Kern, conducted depositions of the above patients on 10/5/81 and 10/6/81. With the exception of Barbara DeGolyer, who would not present herself for deposition.

 

 

The Second Amended Complaint was filed 8/23/82 after Steven Kern conducted depositions for the defense on April 2, 1982. They included the following patients:

(Filed 8/23/82)

Sherry Bell

Debbie Butterfield

Judith Fogg

Linda Karnas

Susan More

Joann Parker

Harrel Spann

Florence Thompson

Deana Walker

Florence Thompson, and Deana Walker were omitted from the Revised Second Amended Complaint of 1/12/83

 

 

Supplementary Complaints:

 

 

            Elaine Prudhomme        filed 11/10/82

            Richard Card    filed 4/4/83

In November 1982, the attorneys general on behalf of the Board of

Dental Examiners called for an emergency hearing before Judge Dana Cleaves on the complaint involving Elaine Prudhomme. Dr. Greenwald, who was not present at the hearing, but represented by Steven Kern, was suspended for one week prior to a FINAL hearing on the matter scheduled for November 22, 1982. Following a nine and one half hour hearing, with expert witnesses testifying for both sides, Judge Dana Cleaves found in favor of the defendant, Dr. Greenwald. However, the attorneys general added the Elaine Prudhomme complaint to the Revised Second Amended Complaint of 1/12/83.

 

 

 

 

The Revised Second Amended Complaint now included charges of incompetent record keeping.

 

 

NOTE: Altogether there were nine assistant attorneys general, and one deputy attorney general assigned to this case from 1980 through 1985.

 

 

Presented here is a compilation of wrongdoings by the attorneys general and the Board of Dental Examiners, in the case of the Maine Board of Dental Examiners vs. Dr. Aaron Greenwald.

 

 

With regard to DEBRA CANDICE WALLACE: (Linscott-Hinson) D.0.B.10/28/50 Hallowell, Maine. Worked as nurse's aide at St. Joseph's Hospital in Bangor in 1969. Married Bill Wallace in 1974. A.F.D.C. (Welfare) recipient with three children (one child by previous marriage). Address: 38 Jefferson Street, Bangor, Maine. Now divorced from Bill Wallace.

 

 

Debra Wallace was physically and sexually abused as a child from the age of 9 - 16 by members of her family. Because of this she had been undergoing continued psychiatric care for the past twenty years. The State Medicaid program paid for her medical and psychiatric treatment. Steven Kern, attorney for the defendant, deposed Debra Wallace on October 5th and 6th 1981. In the original Wallace complaint there were 22 points. These were added to, refined, or deleted through the ensuing Complaints (Complaint, Amended Complaint, Second Amended Complaint, and Revised Second Amended Complaint). The Revised Second Amended Complaint it was down to, 1 point: "In the course of two visits for dental treatment during October and November 1976, defendant intimated to Debra Wallace, a patient, that he would accept sexual favors as payment for services, and unnecessarily touched Ms. Wallace's private parts without her consent."

 

 

The attorneys general, acting as counsel for the Board of Dental Examiners failed to fully investigate the sexual charges that were four years old. No criminal charges were ever brought against Dr. Greenwald by Mrs. Wallace. The alleged assault was never reported to any authority. The attorneys general failed to fully investigate the alleged victim's character, and failed to provide copies of Mrs. Wallace's dental records for treatment provided by Dr. Greenwald at the Adult Dental Clinic. Dr. Greenwald treated Mrs. Wallace and other indigent adults without charge, through the Clinic, on a volunteer basis. The attorneys general failed to provide copies of the investigations of Mrs. Wallace conducted in the summer of 1980 by Malcolm Lyons and Joe Kozak; the former was the prior head of Social Services Dept., Attorney General's office. Mr. Lyons and Mr. Kozak were attorneys representing the Maine Dental Association in its investigation of Dr. Greenwald.

The attorneys general failed to interview Dr. Greenwald or members of his staff with regard to the serious charges filed against him.

 

 

I.

 

 

At the deposition of Mrs. Wallace, six local pharmacists were subpoenaed at random, and instructed to bring with them all prescriptions for Debra Candace Wallace from before October 1976 to present. The pharmacists provided the amount of prescriptions for dangerous and controlled substances, including injectible Valium and Demerol, at that time. According to Dr. Stanley Evans, the State's expert on alcohol and drug abuse, the amount was overwhelming and far exceeded the possibility of human consumption. Medicaid paid for all those prescriptions and for the services of the many doctors who prescribed them.

 

 

The attorneys general were aware Debra Wallace was committing Medicaid fraud and chose to ignore it.

 

 

On April 13, 1981, at the request of the attorneys general, Lt. Fred Clarke, of the Bangor Police Dept., hypnotized Debra Wallace, in the hope that she would provide more information regarding her alleged complaint. Dr. Larry Salvesen, Mrs. Wallace's psychiatrist was present at her request. The hypnosis was not a success because of Mrs. Wallace's inability to concentrate.

 

 

Also at the request of the attorneys general, Debra Wallace was given a polygraph examination on March 23, 1981. She stated to the examiner that she was not taking any medication at that time. Her statement was untrue. Prescription records revealed she was taking Valium, Dyazide and Dalmane. Debra Wallace passed the examination according to the examiner from the Maine State Police.

 

 

Piers Bierne, Assistant Professor of criminal studies at the University of Southern Maine; an expert on polygraph studies, stated a pathological liar can easily deceive the machine and the examiner.

 

 

In April 1982, Assistant Attorney General, Robert Frank, deposed Mrs. Greenwald. Mr. Frank warned Mrs. Greenwald that "under pain of perjury" she was obligated to tell the truth. He made it very clear, if she committed perjury, he would file charges against her. The actions of the attorneys general have shown, they allow perjury, if it's their witness who commits the perjury.

As an example:

Debra Wallace perjured herself more than 20 times in the course of her deposition when questioned about conversations she had with regard to Dr. Greenwald and the alleged assault. After being caught perjuring herself by Steven Kern, attorney for the defendant, (Page 1 thru 96

dep. Oct 6, 1981) Assistant Attorney General Michael Richards became so infuriated that his "key witness" had perjured herself (his anger was not directed at his witness but at Steven Kern and Dr. Greenwald, et al) that he threatened to immediately stop the deposition at once.

Steven Kern called Judge Cleaves who ordered the deposition continue. Ultimately, during the continuation of the deposition, and Mr. Richards’s on-going objections, Mr. Kern stated "I think you are interfering with a truthful investigation, Mr. Richards, and I will take that to the proper authorities at the proper time." (page 34 dep.10/6) Mrs. Wallace was asked if she had ever been in court on any other matter. She responded "Not that I can remember." (pages 62-64 Oct 6) However, Mrs. Wallace was found guilty on two separate charges in Maine; once in Lewiston for theft, and once in Calais for disorderly conduct. Copies of court documents are attached. The attorneys general had knowledge of Debra (Linscott-Hinson) Wallace's criminal records and knew she had lied under oath.

In early June 1983 the attorneys general knew the following dentists; perjured themselves during the course of their deposition:

Dr. William J. Deighan, Dr. Shaun Dowd, Dr. Charles Ramsberger, Dr. Henry K. Woodbrey and Dr. David Talley. The five dentists named were directly responsible for filing all of the complaints with the Board.

 

 

 

 

Again, the attorneys general chose to allow perjury because it was their witnesses who committed the perjury.

Evidence supporting these facts is presented in excerpts from depositions and tape-recorded conversations further on in this document.

 

 

Continuing with Debra Wallace:

Mrs. Wallace stated during her deposition that she met with Barbara DeGolyer (another sexual complainant) on January 2nd or 3rd, 1981. Ms. DeGolyer was at that time employed by the Penobscot County District Attorney's office as a victim-witness advocate. Wallace met with DeGolyer on a professional basis. Allegedly Wallace's 9 year old daughter had been sexual assaulted and charges had been filed with the district attorney. Wallace stated in her deposition that Bangor attorney, Marshall Stern had represented her at various times, and at one particular meeting in his office, Mr. Stern asked her "Why are you and Barbara DeGolyer bringing charges against Aaron Greenwald?" (Page 173 dep. Oct 6) Wallace replied "And I said! wasn't aware that I was and I didn't even...don't even know who Barbara DeGolyer is." Stern continued "Well, Aaron Greenwald carne in here with the paper and showed me and asked me if I would represent him. [Feb. 17, 1981} And your name was on it." Wallace continued "And so that's how the name DeGolyer was brought up and I said, I don't even know the woman." Kern asks, "When did this meeting take place?" (With Stern) She responds "I'm not sure if it was a couple of days after January 1st, or if it was a few days or, you know, in the month of December." Kern asks "And it would have certainly been before you met DeGolyer on January 2nd or 3rd, 1981?" Wallace responds. "Oh yes, it definitely was, because I didn't even know her name." (Page 174-176 dep Oct 6)

 

 

NOTE: The Original Complaint was filed in Administrative Court on February 13, 1981 and served upon Dr. Greenwald February 17th. It was on that same day Dr. Greenwald first learned of the complaint against him and met with Marshall Stern in his office with the complaint in hand to discuss representation.

It is Dr. Greenwald's belief that DeGolyer worked with Wallace to develop her accusations against Dr. Greenwald, after finding out of Wallace's dislike for him. Combined with the encouragement Wallace received from Dr. Rarnsberger, (both her dentist and DeGolyer's dentist) and DeGolyer's own motives to get back at Dr. Greenwald for filing a successful small claims action against her.

The three women were also brought together in August 1980, in the law offices of Louis Vafiades, when interviewed by the two attorneys, Mal Lyons and Joe Kozak, representing the Maine Dental Association.

During the course of her deposition, Wallace was asked to draw a diagram of Dr. Greenwald's office at 37 Bower Street. Wallace marked the treatment room she was in on both occasions as treatment room A (Page 36 dep Oct 5). Wallace claimed the treatment room door was open and closed at various times while she sat in the dental chair. "Sometimes, it was open a little bit, but most of the time closed." Kern asked "Now did this door have a lock on it?" "I'm not sure." Wallace replied (page 45) Kern continued "As you looked at the door from the dental chair...was the doorknob on the left or was the doorknob on the right?" Wallace replied "It was on the right of the hinges." Kern's labored questioning about the door and doorknob was for good reason. The door to the treatment room was a sliding door which remained inside the wall at all times. (dep 10/5 thru page 108)

 

 

 

 

Richards objected to the questioning about the door on grounds of best evidence. "I'm going to introduce a floor plan of the doctor's office." The floor plan clearly shows the sliding door to treatment room A. Attached to this document is the architect's floor plan of 37 Bower street, Bangor.

Wallace stated during the course of her deposition (10/5 page 36¬37) that she had a close friendship with Margaret Kravchuk, who at that time was an assistant district attorney. Now Judge Kravchuk, Third District Court in Bangor. Wallace and Kravchuk were neighbors and close friends. Why didn't Wallace seek advise from her neighbor and friend, Mrs. Kravchuk, during those four long intervening years with respect to the alleged sexual assault?

 

 

Attached to this document is a letter from Dr. Thomas Guthiel, a forensic psychiatrist, graduate of Harvard University College of Medicine and head of Massachusetts Mental Health. The attorneys general refused to allow the defense to have Wallace evaluated by Dr. Guthiel or anyone else. They felt her psychiatric history and the fact that she had been physically and sexually abused as a child had no relevance to her allegations against Dr. Greenwald. They fought the continuation of her deposition and access to her psychiatric records. The deposition of Wallace was never completed.

 

 

The attorneys general did not have one shred of evidence against Dr. Greenwald with respect to the Wallace complaint other than the pornographic seven page account, purportedly written three days after the incident occured in 1976, (and put away for 4 years). However, on behalf of Dr. Greenwald, two witnesses stated no such incident occured. Jeanette Watson, Dr. Greenwald's secretary, and Elizabeth McInnis, wife of Superior Court Justice, Ian McInnis. Both were present in the office, less than 8 feet away, at the time Wallace stated she was assaulted. Mrs. McInnis stated that to her knowledge nothing unusual was going on during her visit and she wasn't even aware of another patient in the next room. Mrs. McInnis was never interviewed or contacted by the State. However, Investigator Marvin Ellis, of the attorney general's office interviewed Jeanette Watson in her home. Mrs. Watson told Mr. Ellis "Dr. Greenwald is not the type of person who would conduct himself in such a way with his patients." She also stated

"her desk, at that time in question, was located in such a way that had any conduct, of the nature alleged, taken place, she would certainly have overheard and been aware of it, which she is not." (Ellis investigative report) Jeanette Watson stated Mr. Ellis called her a liar. Jeanette, married with two grown sons, deaconess of her church, married to the deacon, threw Mr. Ellis out of her home.

 

 

To close on Debra Wallace, I offer one of her many colorful quotes: (which can be found starting on page 11 of the deposition Oct 6, and on page 14 thru 24 of the transcripts provided to the attorney general per order of Judge Dana Cleaves.)

 

 

"Well obviously, they've never been locked in a room and sexually molested, so fuck em. I have". And "Aaron Greenwald came to Maine with his New York attitude that he was something fucking great. That he could do whatever he wanted and get away with it. And well see, he's pulled this shit off with me because I was on welfare, and I'm going to the dental clinic, you know, and you've got to be poor to go to the dental clinic, so of course he can do anything to my body that he wants to, because he's better than I am. Well fine. I may not have any money, but I got a good mind, and I can make people listen to me."

 

Attachments:

List of medications (Wallace)

Court documents (Wallace)

Architect's plans 37 Bower Street, Bangor, Maine Dr. Thomas Guthiel letter

 

With regard to the Barbara Jayne DeGolyer complaint

            The Original Complaint filed in Administrative Court February 13,

1981 read as follows:

Barbara Jayne DeGolyer went to defendant's Bower Street office for dental treatment in October 1976. During the initial treatment of Ms. DeGolyer, defendant intentionally and repeatedly touched her breasts with his hand. Ms. DeGolyer did not consent in any way to this touching.

 

The Amended Complaint dated July 7, 1981 changed the date of DeGolyer's appointment to November 1976. Everything else remained unchanged.

 

In an inter-department memorandum dated August 29, 1980, from Assistant Attorney General, William Kelleher to Investigator, Marvin Ellis, Kelleher wrote:

"Kozak also interviewed: Barbara Jayne DeGolyer. She works for the district attorney or Clerk of Courts in Bangor. She told Kozak that approximately January 1979 a similiar incident to that which occurred to Wallace occurred with her, she immediately got up and left upon his touching her and propositioning her."         

 

Had the attorneys general conducted a proper investigation and interviewed Dr. Greenwald and staff they would have learned Barbara

DeGolyer came to the office as stated in November 1976, however, she returned in 1979 for additional treatment on SIX separate occasions.

According to the charges Dr. Greenwald repeatedly and intentionally touched her breasts with his hands. Yet, DeGolyer paid Dr. Greenwald $200 for the services he rendered in 1976 and returned in 1979 for additional treatment. She was successfully sued by Dr. Greenwald for $210 unpaid balance in 1979. Judge F. Davis Clark awarded judgment to Dr. Greenwald. In May 1980 DeGolyer finally paid Dr. Greenwald.

Then brought charges against him.

 

DeGolyer was supoenaed for deposition on October 5, 1981. At that time she was no longer employed by the district attorney and was living in Corea, Maine. (Approx 20 miles south of Bangor) Sheriffs tried repeatedly to find DeGolyer for the deposition but were unsuccessful. As a former employee of the district attorney, DeGolyer knew the procedure and how to avoid being served. Judge Cleaves ordered the attorneys general to produce DeGolyer for deposition. They could not. DeGo1yer was stricken from the Complaint ONE AND ONE HALF YEARS after the Original Complaint was filed.

The Penobscot County Commissioners sued DeGolyer in 1982 for misappropriating county funds.

 

With regard to the Jennifer Ann Watson complaint:

 

 

 

 

Count three of their ORIGINAL Complaint of February 13, 1981 stated:

"Dr. Greenwald Intentionally touched the breasts and made several sexual remarks to Jennifer Ann Watson without her consent and after she declined to return to Dr. Greenwald's office Dr. Greenwald offered to exchange his professional services for sexual favors."

 

In the REVISED Second Amended Complaint:

"In the course of one visit for dental treatment in November 1977, defendant intimated to Jennifer Watson, a patient, that he would accept sexual favors as payment for dental services."

 

In an inter-department memorandum from Marvin Ellis to Assistant Attorney General, Michael Richards, dated March 17, 1981, Ellis wrote: "During an interview of Jennifer Watson on 3/11/81 reported under file 26C-80-5, Watson was questioned concerning the variances of information contained in my 9/28/80 interview of Watson, reported under the above file, and the information contained in memo of Assistant Attorney General William Kelleher, dated 8/29/80 which reports information concerning the results of interview of Watson by Malcolm Lyons, attorney for the Maine Dental Association. I read both the results of my interview and the information contained in the above memo. Watson stated that the information contained in my report is a correct representation of the results of the 9/28/80 interview. She stated that Greenwald did not ask for a sex partner, but made statements about dinner, as I reported. She also stated that Greenwald did not touch her breasts with his hands, but brushed against her body with his. Also, Greenwald did not touch her thighs with his hands or his body.

"Watson could not explain the difference in my report and that of Mal Lyons, but offered that the information supposed to have been reported by Lyons was either in error or were his own conclusions which he, for some reason, drew after listening to Watson."

 

Mal Lyons and Joseph Kozak, both attorneys for the MAINE DENTAL ASSOCIATION, interviewed all three women at the same time in August 1980.

Lyons reported:

"Jennifer Ann Watson, 11 Garland Street, Bangor, Maine, told him that approximately in November 1977 he (Greenwald) offered to exchange his services as a dentist for hers as a sexual partner. He also touched her thighs and breasts without her permission."

 

 

In the deposition of Jennifer Ann Watson on October 5, 1981 she unequivocally denied the fact that these events took place. Rather than testify that Dr. Greenwald intentionally touched her breasts, as was charged, Ms. Watson stated that Dr. Greenwald BRUSHED against her breasts with his upper arm while his hands were in her mouth and she did not know whether he brushed against her intentionally or unintentionally. Similarly, rather than testify that Dr. Greenwald offered to exchange his services for sexual favors, Ms. Watson stated that when she told Dr. Greenwald she didn't have the money for a specific procedure Dr. Greenwald merely called her on the phone and invited her to dinner and said that something could be worked out over dinner. (Page 5-3 to 7-17 Oct 5, 1981)

 

Marvin Ellis, Investigator for the attorneys general, interviewed Jennifer Ann Watson on 9/28/80. His report stated what Watson had testified to in her deposition. However, the attorneys general chose to ignore their own investigator's report. The state's Original and Amended Complaint dated 2/13/81 and 7/7/81) read the same. The Second Amended Complaint dated 8/23/82 read:

"During the treatment of Ms. Watson, defendant unnecessarily and intentionally touched her breasts and made several sexually suggestive remarks. Ms. Watson cancelled her next appointment with defendant. Defendant telephoned Ms. Watson and inquired as to the reason for her cancellation. Ms. Watson told defendant she could not afford further treatment. Defendant implied he would exchange his professional services for her sexual favors."

 

The final Revised Second Amended Complaint dated 1/20/83 read: "In the course of one visit for dental treatment in November 1977, defendant intimated to Jennifer Ann Watson, a patient, that he would accept sexual favors as payment for dental services."

 

It had been almost two years since the original complaint. Finally the State conceded and deleted their claim of intentional touching. However, they refused to concede and delete their charge of exchanging sexual favors for dental services. The State fudged their complaint with the word INTIMATED.

 

NOTE: Dr. Greenwald had been known on more than one occasion to use the term "we can work something out" with regard to a patient's ability to pay for treatment. His office manager, and other staff members, including his wife, heard him use this expression. He said it to both male and female patient alike...Does this make him an alleged homosexual?

 

Three charges of sexual assault. Each charge over 4 years old. Debra Wallace never complained to anyone of authority, not even her neighbor, Margaret Kravchuk, an assistant district attorney. Barbara DeGolyer, worked for the district attorney, yet, she never filed any formal complaint.

 

 

Jennifer Watson, apparently did write a letter to the Ethics and Grievance Committee in 1977. Her letter addressed the fact that she was unhappy with having to pay for the treatment upon completion and that she felt Dr. Greenwald had made off color remarks. Dr. Kominsky, (deceased) at that time handled complaints for the committee, spoke to the patient and to Dr. Greenwald, and took no action. The matter was disposed of at that time. Dr. Greenwald did not remember who Watson was until he received further discovery and recalled a young woman who had written a letter back in 1977, which he had discussed with Dr. Kominsky. Certainly he had joked with her, as he had with many of his patients and, in the presence of his secretary.

The letter, written by Jennifer Watson in 1977, then lost, appeared in 1982 in the hands of the attorneys general. However, it was now not one page, hand written on personalized stationary, but four pages, typed.

 

With regard to the complaint of Robert Evans:

Filed in the ORIGINAL Complaint of February 13, 1981 then deleted from the AMENDED Complaint of 7/7/81. Then included in the SECOND AMENDED Complaint of 8/23/82. Then deleted from the REVISED SECOND AMENDED Complaint of 1/12/83

 

 

In a letter dated July 12, 1982 from Assistant Attorney General Robert Frank to Dr. Walter Crites, Secretary of the Board of Dental Examiners, Mr. Frank wrote: "At our last meeting, you inquired about our office's investigation of an incident in which Dr. Greenwald allegedly prescribed a dangerous level of drug dosage for a small boy; Robert Evans. The drug in question is Empracet No.3, which Dr. Greenwald prescribed on a one tablet as needed basis. Empracet No.3 contains one half gram of codeine. According to Dr. Terry Sheehan, a pediatrician here in Augusta, Empracet No.3 is a relatively strong dose of codeine for a child, but not unacceptable so long as the maximum dosage per day is properly limited." I will keep you advised of continuing developments in this case.

 

Because Robert Evans complaint had been deleted from the AMENDED Complaint of 7/7/81 no action on the part of defense counsel took place. The depositions were taken on October 5th and 6, 1981. When the attorneys general filed their SECOND AMENDED Complaint in August 1982 they included Robert Evans. The REVISED SECOND AMENDED Complaint did not include Robert Evans because Judge Dana Cleaves ordered it stricken.

 

            With regard to the complaint involving Guy Chapman:

 

Filed with the ORIGINAL Complaint of February 13, 1981.

Dr. William Deighan, Jr., filed the complaint involving the treatment of Mr. Chapman without Mr. Chapman's consent or knowledge and without authorization from Mr. Chapman to release his records.

The ORIGINAL Complaint charges "Dr. Greenwald was unable to diagnose Mr. Chapman's ailment and incompetently failed to refer the patient to an oral surgeon for proper treatment. Because of this failure, Mr. Chapman was required to seek treatment by various physicians, the last of who referred Mr. Chapman to an oral surgeon, Dr. Deighan, who successfully diagnosed and treated the ailment. As a result of this failure, Mr. Chapman was required to suffer unnecessary pain and expense."

Steven Kern deposed Mr. Chapman on October 6, 1981:

Mr. Chapman testified that he was satisfied with the treatment he received from Dr. Greenwald and that he referred him to an E.N.T. medical specialist. Unfortunately Mr. Chapman failed to heed Dr. Greenwald's advice and thereby suffered a delay in his receipt of proper treatment. Mr. Chapman testified when he finally did go to an oral surgeon after receiving clearance from an ear, nose and throat specialist, the oral surgeon, Dr. Deighan, took the same type of x-ray taken by Dr. Greenwald, and was also unable to find the patient's problem. Only after taking additional x-rays using equipment not generally found in a general practitioner's office at that time, (panoramic x-ray) was Dr. Deighan able to determine the cause of Mr. Chapman's problem and provide treatment for him.

 

            The SECOND AMENDED Complaint of August 23, 1982 involving the treatment of Mr. Chapman now read: "Defendant was unable to diagnose the ailment, and negligently and incompetently referred the patient to an ear nose and throat specialist rather than an oral surgeon. Because of this improper referral Mr. Chapman sought treatment by various physicians.

 

The REVISED SECOND AMENDED Complaint stated: "Greenwald referred Mr. Chapman to a "medical doctor." And charges of incompetent record

 

 

keeping were added to the complaint even though the Plaintiff's had in their possession Dr. Greenwald's records of Mr. Chapman when they filed the AMENDED Complaint in July 1981 (Rule 15D) deal with events bearing on or arising out of the matters originally pleaded which "occur" after the complaint has been filed. This was not the case here. The attorneys general acted in bad faith by allowing charges of alleged improper record keeping, even though there is no requirement under Maine law that adequate records be kept or maintained.

 

With regard to the complaint involving Carroll Dyer:

Filed in the ORIGINAL Complaint of February 13, 1981.

The State alleged that: "Dr. Greenwald failed to remove a fractured root during the course of an extraction of a lower first bicuspid. Further, Dr. Greenwald failed to inform the patient of the retained root. Mr. Dyer was required to seek the services of Dr. William Deighan, an oral surgeon, who removed the retained root."

The AMENDED Complaint was unchanged except for the date of treatment which was March 1980, not April. Since the attorneys general had not requested Dr. Greenwald's records prior to filing any of the complaints they were not aware of the correct dates.

Dr. Deighan filed the complaint in the form of a letter to Dr. Walter Crites, Secretary of the Board of Dental Examiners. The letter was dated April 23, 1980.

The BLOCK DIGEST Dental Science News; a dental periodical, conducted a study for purposes of identifying and qualifying pathological conditions in edentulous patients (patients without teeth). Panoramic x-rays were taken of 368 patients without teeth who needed complete dentures but had no history of oral or jaw abnormalities. 37% of the patients were shown to have some undiagnosed pathological condition which included "root fragments" 64%.

There is not a general dentist in the entire country who has not experienced similar problems in extractions similar to these. During the course of deposition, Mr. Dyer repeatedly stated he could not remember exactly what Dr. Greenwald had told him with regard to postoperative care. Nor could he recall which month or year Dr. Greenwald treated him. Sometimes it creates more of a problem to remove a root tip than to leave it alone and monitor the patient. If the patient develops problems as a result of the retained root, then at that time it can be removed. Dr. Greenwald has in his own mouth, a retained root tip from a third molar extraction performed by a professor of oral surgery at NYU School of Dentistry. It has remained in his jaw asymptomatically since 1955.

 

 

The REVISED SECOND AMENDED Complaint remained unchanged included incompetent record keeping. Again the State had Dr. Greenwald's records of Mr. Dyer in their possession prior to of the AMENDED Complaint of July 1981, and therefore must be under Rule 15 (d) of the Maine Rules of Civil Procedure.

 

 

But now

 

The filing barred

 

 

Dr. William Deighan was deposed in May 1983 and when asked stated that he had seen a fair number of root tips left in patients mouths during his career. Some of which he removed and some he did not. When asked if he had filed a complaint against those dentists involved, he said no, he had not.

 

Mr. Dyer was informed, as all patients were, to return to Dr. Greenwald if he had any difficulties or concerns. Mr. Dyer chose to go to another dentist close to where he lived in Orono, outside Bangor. Had the attorneys general properly investigated this complaint, and interviewed Mary Maddocks, Dr. Greenwald's assistant, they could have verified this information.

 

With regard to complaint involving Lisa Burgess: Filed with the AMENDED Complaint of 7/7/81

Dr. Shaun Dowd was responsible for this complaint.

 

"Lisa Burgess went to defendant for dental treatment from August 1980 to March 1981. During the course of treatment, defendant had prescribed penicillin for Ms. Burgess, and on or about February 2, 1981, Ms. Burgess developed an acute reaction to penicillin. Defendant was notified of the acute allergic reaction on or about February 3, 1981. On or about February 4, 1981, defendant negligently and incompetently prescribed a medication for Ms. Burgess which contained penicillin."

 

On April 2, 1982, Richard Wilken, a pharmacist employed by Welby Drug, was deposed with regard to prescriptions written by Dr. Greenwald or Dr. Griffith, an employee of Dr. Greenwald, who also treated Lisa Burgess. Assistant Attorney General, Robert Frank, and Assistant Attorney General, William Laubenstein III, appeared on behalf of the state. Robert Treworgy appeared on behalf of Dr. Greenwald.

Mr. Laubenstein (page 18 dep 4/82) "Mr. Wilken, if you were aware that a patient was allergic to penicillin would you recommend taking Keflex?" Wilken: "It's done very commonly."

Treworgy: "Do you know whether a search of Welby Drugstore was conducted to comply with the request to produce all prescriptions related to Lisa Burgess." "I believe I have." Treworgy: "Do you have with you all prescriptions written by Dr. Greenwald during the period January 1st, 1981 and ending March 31, 1981, concerning Lisa Burgess?" "Yes." "Do they represent all prescriptions written by Dr. Greenwald beginning January I, 1981 and ending March 31, 1981, concerning Lisa Burgess?" "Yes." "Do your records indicate whether or not the prescription was ever refilled?" "No." "Could it have been refilled?" "No, if it were refilled, I would need either an authorization from the physician or a new prescription." Laubenstein asks "And how would you note that authorization?" "I would write on the back "MD okays 3 times or one time or whatever." Laubenstein: "And there is no notation on the back of defendant’s number 3 exhibits?" "That's right." Treworgy. "And let the record reflect there aren't any notations on the back of any of the original items on which the exhibits are based." Laubenstein: "Do you have any other prescriptions for Lisa Burgess?" "Yes." "For what years?" "Well, whatever the profile would indicate, starting probably at whenever they started dealing with us...to present." "Can you tell us, Mr. Wilken, from your profile, whether or not you've ever had other prescriptions issued for Lisa Burgess?" "Yes, we have?" "During what period of time?" "I would say it starts 2/6/79 and continues through the current time." "Were any of those prescriptions written by Dr. Greenwald?" "I believe he has written other prescriptions prior to 1981." Mr. Wilken listed three prescriptions given to Lisa Burgess in 1980 by Dr. Greenwald and one prescription given by Dr. James Griffith. No prescriptions for Penicillin or Keflex were given to Lisa Burgess after January 28, 1981 as was indicated on Dr. Greenwald's record.

 

On August 28, 1982, after the deposition of Richard Wilken, the attorneys general filed their SECOND AMENDED Complaint. With regard to Lisa Burgess it read:

"Lisa Burgess went to defendant for dental treatment from August 1980 to March 1981. During the course of treatment, defendant prescribed Penicillin for Ms. Burgess. On or about February 2, 1981, Ms. Burgess developed an acute allergic reaction to Penicillin. Defendant was notified of this acute allergic reaction on or about February 3, 1981. On or about February 4, 1981, defendant negligently and incompetently prescribed Keflex for Ms. Burgess which was contraindicated for patients allergic to Penicillin."

A copy of the PDR (Physicians desk reference) for 1980-81 was available to the attorneys general. Reference to it would reveal Keflex is a suitable substitute for Penicillin allergic patients.

No record of any subsequent prescription for Keflex was ever found.

The SECOND AMENDED Complaint stated:

"Ms. Burgess went to defendant for root canal treatment on twenty three separate occasions." Dr. Greenwald's record showed Lisa had a total of 15 appointments. (several appointments were cancelled) The State corrected their error in the Revised Second Amended Complaint. The Second Amended Complaint alleged "Dr. Greenwald prescribed codeine for Ms. Burgess. Ms. Burgess developed an allergy to codeine. Ms. Burgess subsequently informed defendant of her allergy to codeine. Thereafter, defendant negligently and incompetently prescribed codeine for Ms. Burgess, which was contraindicated for patients allergic to codeine."

The State alleged that in late August or September 1980, Ms. Burgess developed a hive like rash on her arms. Dr. Greenwald was notified of her condition. Dr. Greenwald advised Lisa she may have suffered an adverse reaction to codeine and advised her to discontinue taking the drug. A number of visits later, one of defendant's employees, Dr. James Griffith. prescribed Tylenol #3 for Ms. Burgess, a drug containing a relatively high dosage of codeine per tablet. According to Mrs. Doughty, (Lisa's mother) Gary Taylor, a pharmacist at Welby Drug in Bangor, upon discovering his colleague, Richard Wilken, had filled the prescription for Tylenol #3, immediately contacted Mrs. Doughty and told her to instruct Lisa not to take the drug. Mr. Richard Wilken, in his deposition, stated when asked by Assistant Attorney General, Mr. Laubenstein: "To your knowledge, has Gary Taylor ever refused to fill a prescription for Lisa?" Mr. Wilken replied. "Not to my knowledge." Mr. Wilken stated he discussed with Gary Taylor the prescriptions which were subpoenaed."

 

NOTE: Tylenol #3 as described in the Physicians Desk Reference of 1982, the amount prescribed was a safe and acceptable dosage (Steven Kern letter 9/16/82 to Judge Cleaves)

 

The REVISED SECOND AMENDED Complaint with regard to Lisa Burgess stated: "Dr. Koster Peters (Ms. Burgess' Physician) [osteopath) diagnosed Ms. Burgess' condition as an allergic reaction to penicillin or Keflex. Dr. Peters stated in his deposition (May 1983) his diagnosis was "allergic reaction to drug, Penicillin." He did not include Keflex.

(The State did) The complaint stated: "After being informed of Ms. Burgess' allergic response to the prescribed antibiotics, defendant and or Dr. Griffith, on a subsequent visit, again prescribed Penicillin or Keflex."

 

 

NOTE: Now the State was not sure what was prescribed, when it was prescribed, who prescribed it, or if it was ever prescribed at all. This could have been very funny except that it was costing the Greenwald’s financial and emotional hardship. The pharmacist had already testified no such subsequent prescription existed. Dr. Greenwald's record for Lisa Burgess indicated no prescriptions were given after January 28, 1981. The State insisted over and over and over that a prescription was given to the patient after February 2, 1981, and they wouldn't let go because it was all they had.

 

During the deposition of Dr. Koster Peters, he was asked by Steven Kern, defense counsel "Can chocolate or fried foods result in the type of rash that Lisa had?" Dr. Peters was quick to respond. "Certainly." These two foods are very high on any teenager's 'food to be eaten' list.

The REVISED SECOND AMENDED Complaint charged Dr. Greenwald with not using a rubber dam while performing the root canal therapy on Lisa. However, Dr. Shaun Dowd, (who initiated the complaint) completed the treatment, testified in his deposition (dep. page 54 May '83) that he did not use a rubber dam while treating Lisa.

The attorneys general, in a last ditch attempt to salvage the Burgess complaint, charged Dr. Greenwald with improper record keeping. There is no requirement under Maine law that adequate records are kept. The attorneys general had in their possession the records of Lisa Burgess before they filed the SECOND AMENEDED Complaint. At that time there was no charge of improper record keeping.

 

With regard to the complaint involving Debbie Butterfield:

Filed by Dr. William Deighan

Filed in the SECOND AMENDED Complaint August 28, 1982.

It read: "In or around August or' September of 1981, Debbie Butterfield visited defendant to obtain treatment for an aching tooth. Defendant induced Ms. Butterfield to undergo relatively expensive root canal therapy rather than have the tooth extracted. Defendant then administered root canal therapy to the tooth. Subsequently, the tooth became infected and abscessed. Ms. Butterfield was required to obtain the services of another dentist (Deighan) to extract the tooth at additional expense."

The REVISED SECOND AMENDED Complaint read: "Debbie Butterfield visited defendant for treatment of an aching tooth. Defendant examined Mrs. Butterfield and recommended root canal therapy or extraction. Because of relative cost, Mrs. Butterfield requested defendant to extract the tooth at once. Defendant refused to do so."

Dr. Deighan filed the Butterfield complaint without the patient's knowledge or consent. Her records were released without her permission.

In a letter dated September 28, 1981, to Michael Richards, Assistant Attorney General, from Dr. Deighan. Deighan wrote: "This patient was seen by Dr. Greenwald approximately 2 weeks ago when he attempted to redo root canal treatment on tooth #15, an upper left second molar."

The attorneys general made no attempt to interview Mrs. Butterfield, Dr. Greenwald or his staff, or properly investigate the complaint. Their sole complaint was based on the letter of Dr. William Deighan.

Mrs. Butterfield's dental record indicated she came to the office on August 28, 1981 for a consultation. She stated the only reason she came was because of her husband's insistence. She was anxious to leave and requested no treatment. She also stated she had no money with her.

 

 

From a cursory clinical examination, it was determined the tooth was infected. The patient did not want any x-rays taken. The choice of treatment between root canal therapy, post and crown, or extraction was explained to her. She wanted time to think about it and she was given two prescriptions, one for pain and one for antibiotics, and told to return when she was ready for treatment. There was no charge for the office visit because no treatment was performed.

On February 22 and 23, 1982, Mrs. Greenwald personally visited Mrs. Butterfield in her home. They talked for about an hour on each occasion. Both conversations were tape recorded for accuracy. (see Butterfield transcripts) Mrs. Butterfield stated she had no complaint against Dr. Greenwald and had no idea who had filed a complaint on her behalf without her permission. That someone had taken it upon himself to complain made her very angry. Butterfield verified that when she came to the office on August 28, 1981 she received no treatment and was not charged for the visit. She stated her reason for not returning for treatment was because her mother paid for her treatment and had a special arrangement with Dr. Deighan who would accept her personal check. Butterfield stated she received two little pieces of paper from the attorneys general to sign for release of information. One had Deighan's name on it and the other Greenwald. She didn't understand what it was all about and was very concerned that there was something wrong with her teeth. She signed the papers and returned them, not wishing to question the action of the attorneys general.

Debbie Butterfield was subpoenaed for deposition on May 4, 1983. Mrs. Butterfield testified that Dr. Greenwald was not the dentist who saw her. Steven Kern asked. "Do you remember his name?" Butterfield replied "No, but he was taller and younger." Kern continued. "This is Dr. Greenwald on my right. Has he ever treated you?" "No." She replied. "Have you ever seen him for dental work?" "No." She replied.

Kern continued. "Did he (whoever) tell you that the tooth could be extracted?" Butterfield "Yes." "Did he say it was your choice to make?" "Yes." "Did you ever file a complaint against Dr. Greenwald?" "No." "Did you authorize anyone else to file a complaint against Dr. Greenwald about the care that you received there?" "No."

 

In a last ditch attempt to salvage the Butterfield complaint, the attorneys general added new charges in the REVISED SECOND AMENDED Complaint that were not in the Complaint of August 1982. These charges were: "Defendant incompetently neglected to perform and or record the following: A diagnosis and diagnostic data base justifying the need for root canal therapy. The taking of dated diagnostic x-rays justifying root canal therapy.

NOTE: There is no requirement under Maine law that adequate records be kept. Also this action should not have been allowed pursuant to Rule 15

(d)

 

As a point of interest, Steven Kern asked approximately seven Bangor dentists and one physician, during the course of their deposition, what a diagnostic data base was, and if they used one in their practice. Not one of the dentists knew what it was. (See dep. May 4, 1983)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

GREENWALD - EVIDENCE 2

 

 

With regard to the complaint involving Judith Fogg: Filed in the SECOND AMENDED Complaint of August 23, 1982.

 

 

It read: "On or around 1978 or 1979, defendant performed root canal therapy on one of the teeth of Judith Fogg. Subsequent to this treatment, Ms. Fogg continued to experience pain in the treated tooth. Ms. Fogg returned to defendant on several occasions complaining of pain in the treated tooth. On each occasion, defendant represented that the tooth was in good condition.

 

 

Ms. Fogg was deposed on May 4, 1983 by Steven Kern, counsel for Dr. Greenwald:

 

 

Kern: "And did Dr. Greenwald perform root canal on that tooth for you?"

Fogg: "Yes, he did." "

Kern: "Do you know when in 1975 he did that?"

Fogg: "Yes, in August."

Kern: "How do you remember that?"

Fogg: "I have the check, the receipt."

Kern: "How many times did you go to Dr. Greenwald back in 1975?" Fogg: "Once."

Kern: "And did you have further problems with the tooth in 1975?" Fogg: "No, I did not. II

Kern: "Did you ever have any more problems with the tooth?"

Fogg: "In 1979, yes."

Kern: "That was the first time you had a problem?"

Fogg: "Yes."

Kern: "What problem did you have in 1979?"

Fogg: "There was a purplish bump on the tooth."

Kern: "Did it bother you at the time?"

Fogg: "No, but it came...it was there and it wasn't supposed to be." Kern: "What did you do when you first noticed that purplish bump?" Fogg: "Well, first when I noticed it was in December, and I went to Dr. Greenwald in March."

Kern: "You noticed it in December of 1978?"

Fogg: "Yes."

Kern: "When you noticed it in December of 1978, you just left it alone for a few months?"

Fogg: "Yes."

Kern: "And you did not seek treatment from anyone else prior to going to Dr. Greenwald?"

Fogg: "No, I did not."

Kern: "You went back to Dr. Greenwald in 1979 in March you said?" Fogg: "Yes."

Kern: "And what did Dr. Greenwald do for you?"

Fogg: "He looked at the tooth, and he said he had never seen anything like it before."

Kern: "Did he x-ray it?"

Fogg: "I cannot remember, truthfully remember."

 

 

NOTE: An x-ray was taken which showed the original dark area at the tip of the root was completely gone. This signified the infection had healed.

 

 

Kern: "Was it bothering you at the time?"

Fogg: "No, it was just there."

Kern: "Had you seen any dentists Fogg: "I went to Dr. Schmidt for Kern: "You returned to him every Fogg: "Yes."

Kern: "And during your visits to Dr. Schmidt, did you ever tell him about your problem with that tooth?"

Fogg: "No."

Kern: "After Dr., Greenwald did the root canal, did you receive further treatment on that tooth?"

Fogg: "The only treatment...no. As far as treatment, the only thing they ever did was polish the tooth."

Kern: "They did put a cap on it, or a permanent filling?"

Fogg: "No."

Kern: "After March of 1979, did the tooth start giving you any difficulty?"

Fogg: "No. It was still...the bump was still there."

Kern: "Did you have any pain?"

Fogg: "No."

Kern: "Did you ever have any pain or discomfort from it?"

Fogg: "No."

Kern: "Did you receive any further treatment on it?"

Fogg: "No, not until 1981."

Kern: "Oh in 1981. Okay in 1981 it started to bother you?"

Fogg: "I looked at it and it looked whitish, and it looked like it might have an abscess?"

Kern: "What did you do about it in December?"

Fogg: "1 went to Dr. Gulesian, and he put me immediately on strong Penicillin pills."

Kern: "Did Dr. Gulesian diagnose your problem?"

Fogg: "He wanted me to see Dr. Fister." (Dr. Deighan's associate) Kern: "Did you ever file a complaint against Dr. Greenwald?"

Fogg: "No."

Kern: "Did you ever authorize anyone to file a complaint against Dr. Greenwald?"

Fogg: "I don't know. It could have been through Dr. Fister but I haven't."

Kern: "Did you ever authorize Dr. Fister to file a complaint against Dr. Greenwald?"

Fogg: "I can't really remember, no."

Kern: "Do you remember signing anything permitting him to disclose information about you to anybody else?"

Fogg: "I don't think I signed anything. No."

 

 

 

 

Moving ahead in the deposition...

Kern: "Did you in fact, have several disappointments with Dr. Greenwald as far as diagnosis and treatment of the ongoing problem was concerned?"

Fogg: "First time I went to him it was fine; second time I went to him everything was alright. It was just the third time."

Kern: "I thought you said you only went to him twice?"

Fogg: "No, it was three times. The first time was '75, second time was when he sent me a paper, he said come back for a checkup. First time he sent one I did not go. Second time he sent one 1 did go and everything was fine then, and the third time was when I went back."

Kern: "Do you remember when the second time was?"

Fogg: "Second time was sometime between '75 and '79."

Kern: "Okay. So you were not disappointed by Dr. Greenwald several times were you?"

Fogg: "Not by the first two visits."

Kern: "The only disappointment you had with him was when he was unable to diagnose the purplish bump on your last visit, correct?"

Fogg: "Right."

Kern: "Why is it that you went to Dr. Gulesian rather than back to Dr. Greenwald?"

Fogg: "By the time I went to Dr. Gulesian, I had read stories about

Dr. Greenwald and besides that he had said that he had never seen anything like it before and he didn't do anything."

Kern: "At that time he said he had not seen anything like it before, you were not in any pain, correct?"

Fogg: "No."

Kern: "And the condition, the looks of the bump had changed between the last time you went to Dr. Greenwald and the time you went to Dr. Gulesian, correct?"

Fogg: "Right."

Kern: "The appearance of your tooth was different in 1982 when you went to Dr. Gulesian than it was in 1979 when you went to Dr.Greenwald, correct?"

Fogg: "Yes."

Kern: "So you don't know whether Dr. Greenwald had seen the tooth in the condition it was in 1982 he would have been able to make a diagnosis of it, do you?"

Fogg: "No, 1 don't."

 

Dr. Jeffrey Fister, (Dr. Deighan's associate) who was responsible for the Fogg complaint was deposed on May 4, 1983 by Steven Kern, counsel for defendant:

 

Kern: "You treated a patient by the name of Judith Fogg, correct?" Fister: "Yes."

Kern: "For what purpose?"

Fister: "She was referred to my office to evaluate a tooth she had had problems with."

Kern: "And did you make an evaluation?"

Fister: "Yes, sir."

Kern: "And what was your evaluation?"

Fister: "The tooth involved had a chronic periapical infection."

Kern: "Were you able to determine the source of that infection?" Fister: "The root tip of the tooth."

Kern: "Have you been able to make an assessment as to what caused the infection at the root tip?"

Fister: "I suspected it was an inadequately filled root canal"

Kern: "On what information did you make that assessment?"

Fister: "On clinical and on radiographic examination, as well as history obtained from the patient."

Kern: "To your knowledge, when was the root canal performed?" Fister: "I can't pinpoint a date, all I can tell you is what my patient told me, it was approximately three to four years prior to this

examination"     (Deposition date 5/83)

Kern:    "And for what length of time was the patient experiencing

problems with the tip.?"

Fister: "She told me that she had problems with that particular tooth since the root canal treatment."

Kern: "If in fact, you were to learn that there was absolutely no

problem with the tooth for a period in excess of three years after the root canal treatment had been performed, would that in any way after your assessment?"

Fister: "As I understand it, that does not pertain to this particular case."

Kern: "In fact I am representing to you, doctor, that the witness, Miss Fogg, just testified before you came in and testified that the root canal was performed in August of 1975 and that she experienced absolutely no pain at all, no discomfort in the tooth until December 1981. She was asymptomatic from August of 1975 when the tooth was filled until December of 1981, Would that change your opinion as to the cause of the infection?"

Fister: "I am not aware, as far as my discussions with the patient, that that is the case. I must also indicate that pain and discomfort are not necessarily the only symptoms that can be elicited."

Kern: "What other symptoms can be elicited?"

Fister: "That does not pertain to this particular case."

Kern: "It mayor may not, doctor. What I'm asking you is, in your understanding of the case, is that the patient had a problem with the root canal since it was done three to four years before you saw her.?"

Fister: "Yes, Sir."

 

On April 11,1982, Mrs. Greenwald visited Judith Fogg at her home and interviewed her with regard to the complaint. A small tape recorder was used for accuracy.

She learned: The attorneys general had made before filing the complaint in August 1982. the letter written by Dr. Jeffrey Fister to Richards, dated January 18, 1982. No effort to interview Judith Fogg Their complaint was based solely on Assistant Attorney General,

 

Michael Recalling the SECOND AMENDED Complaint, which read: "On or about 1978 or 1979, defendant performed root canal therapy on one of the teeth of Judith Fogg. Subsequent to this treatment MS. Fogg continued to experience pain in the treated tooth. Ms. Fogg returned to defendant on several occasions complaining of pain in the treated tooth. On each occasion, defendant represented that the tooth was in good condition."

The REVISED SECOND AMENDED Complaint was filed on January 12, 1983 reflecting some obvious corrections, however, charges of incompetent record keeping were added to the complaint.

 

 

NOTE: A permanent filling or crown was never placed on the treated tooth, which was necessary for the success of the treatment. This subsequent treatment was to be performed by her regular dentist, not Dr. Greenwald, who did not perform that type of procedure. Dr. Greenwald believes this was the reason for the failure, however, Dr. Greenwald believes if Dr. Fister had performed an apicoectomy on the tooth, which Fister discussed with the patient initially, and for which she was referred by Dr. Gulesian, the tooth could have been saved. However, when Dr. Fister extracted the tooth and discarded it. He literally, destroyed the evidence.

The complaint of Harrell Spann was brought to the attention of the Board of Dental Examiners and then the attorneys general in May 1980 in a letter from Dr. Gary Fessler, president of the local society in Bangor. Dr. Fessler enclosed a letter he received from Dr. David Talley regarding the treatment of Harrell Spann. The Spann complaint was not included in the State's ORIGINAL Complaint of February 13, 1981, therefore. One would assume the Board or the attorneys general decided at that time not to pursue the complaint. In March 1982 the attorneys general requested the records of Harrell Spann from Dr. Greenwald. This, almost two years after the complaint was received and passed on to the attorney general, and after depositions had taken place on October 5 and 6th, 1981.

 

Mrs. Greenwald interviewed Mr. Spann at his home in the spring of 1982. A small tape-recorder was used for accuracy;

 

On August 23, 1982 the attorneys general filed the SECOND AMENDED Complaint which now included the treatment of Harrell Spann.

The complaint surrounded the treatment of a periodontally involved tooth which would be an anchor for a partial denture.

As part of their Complaint, the State charged "Defendant represented to Mr. Spann that the total cost of the entire treatment would be $350. Mr. Spann agreed to undergo the planned treatment on that basis. After the treatment began, defendant sought to charge Mr. Spann substantially more for completing the treatment plan. Though the treatment plan was never completed, Mr. Spann paid defendant substantially more than $350 for the services received."

 

The truth was Mr. Spann paid a total of $292 for the services performed up to the point when he changed dentists.

The attorneys general filed their complaint based on the letter of Dr. David Talley dated May 1980, which Dr. Gary Fessler submitted to the Board of Dental Examiners. The attorneys general made no effort to interview Mr. Spann or Dr. Greenwald prior to filing the complaint.

 

The REVISED SECOND AMENDED Complaint was filed on January 12, 1983. Admitting their errors, they deleted from the Complaint the allegation that Dr. Greenwald overcharged Mr. Spann. However, charges of incompetent record keeping were added to the complaint. Maine law does not require that records be kept or maintained.

Dr. David Talley was deposed by Steven Kern, counsel for defendant on May 5, 1983 with regard to his letter to Dr. Fessler concerning the Spann complaint. During the course of deposition, Dr. Talley, who had charged Dr, Greenwald of incompetence for his treatment of Mr. Spann, now changed his tune. He testified that the treatment performed by Dr. Greenwald and his diagnosis was a judgment call and acceptable dental procedure. Dr. Talley perjured himself on several occasions during the course of his deposition. Assistant Attorney general, Robert Frank, became aware of the possibility that his witness was committing perjury, and proceeded to warn him of the fact in an effort to prevent it, but, it was already too late. The attorneys general were fully aware that Drs. Talley, Deighan, Ramsberger, Woodbrey and Dowd, perjured themselves, yet they took no action and failed to charge their witnesses with perjury.

 

With regard to the complaint of Sherry Bell:

Filed in the SECOND AMENDED Complaint of August 23, 1982, the State charged Dr. Greenwald with performing root canal therapy on Ms. Bell. The REVISED SECOND AMENDED Complaint charged the same, along with charges of incompetent record keeping. Dr. Dowden, the State's out-of-state, expert witness, confirmed in his evaluation and statement of patient care, the treatment performed by Dr. Greenwald for Sherry Bell was "Consultation with two x-rays, followed by placement of a temporary filling." (See Dr. Dowden report).

 

The attorneys general charged Dr. Greenwald with performing root canal therapy on Sherry Bell when they had not one shred of evidence to substantiate their claim. The complaint was brought to the attention of the Board of Dental Examiners by Dr. Gary Fessler in a letter dated May 27, 1980. The letter of complaint was typewritten on Dr. Charles Ramsberger's business letterhead by his secretary while the patient, Sherry Bell waited in the office. (Ramsberger and Fessler shared office space) She then signed the letter.

Dr. Greenwald's treatment of Sherry Bell was only a consultation, examination of her tooth, two x-rays and the placement of a temporary filling. The patient insisted Dr. Greenwald place a permanent filling in the tooth. Dr. Greenwald refused because the tooth was infected and needed either root canal therapy or extraction. The charge was $10 for the two x-rays taken. Dr. Dowden, the state's hired expert witness, verified this as the treatment rendered. The only individual who stated root canal therapy was performed, was the patient herself, Sherry Bell, and the attorneys general, based on information received from Dr. Ramsberger. The x-ray taken by Dr. Greenwald showed a large hole in the tooth with decay into the pulp chamber. The nerves of the tooth were already dead. Since Dr. Greenwald could not place a permanent filling in the tooth as the patient requested, he placed a temporary filling until such time as she made up her mind as to what treatment she preferred. She insisted, all she needed was a filling.

 

 

Dr. Ramsberger encouraged her to complain by telling her the reason for her pain may be attributed to the lack of sanitary instruments used by Dr. Greenwald. (See Investigator Marvin Ellis interview of Sherry Bell) Dr. Ramsberger denied saying this in his deposition of October 5, 1981.

The attorneys general and the Board of Dental Examiners had the complaint of Sherry Bell in their possession in May 1980. They investigated the complaint in March 1981; (see interviews of Marvin Ellis) however, the complaint was not included in the AMENDED Complaint of July 7, 1981. Dr. Ramsberger was deposed on October 5, 1981, but the Bell complaint was not part of the AMENDED Complaint, therefore, Steve Kern did not question Dr. Ramsberger with regard to Sherry Bell.

 

 

On March 17, 1982 Mrs. Greenwald interviewed Sherry Bell at her home in the presence of her husband. The conversation was recorded with a small tape recorder. Ms. Bell stated that Dr. Ramsberger asked her to file a complaint.

 

 

Sherry Bell stated Dr. Greenwald pulled a live nerve our of her tooth, which is why the tooth could no longer be treated with a simple filling and now required root canal therapy. If Dr. Greenwald pulled a live nerve out of her tooth she would have been in excruciating pain. (Remember Marathon Man movie) Sherry Bell's tooth was dead, the nerves were history, and Dr. Ramsberger knew that when he looked at an x-ray of the tooth. However, for his own reasons, he chose to remain silent and allow the patient to believe that Dr. Greenwald mistreated her. Then he encouraged her to file a complaint and had her wait while his secretary typed a letter of complaint for her to sign.

During the course of deposition, Dr. Ramsberger perjured himself.

Mrs. Bell was subpoenaed for deposition, but could not be located. With regard to the complaint involving Linda Rogers Karnas:

 

 

Filed with the SECOND AMENDED Complaint of August 23, 1982.

 

The attorneys general charged that Dr. Greenwald performed root canal therapy knowing the patient had a curved root, and therefore the root canal treatment was less likely to succeed.

This is a judgment call, however, if problems develop, the patient may then require an apicoectomy (Sealing the tip of the root by making an incision in the gum at the root tip.) to save the tooth. Linda Karnas was referred to Dr. Greenwald by Dr. Thomas Knaide, her general dentist, specifically for root canal treatment. Marvin Ellis, investigator, interviewed Linda Karnas on March 18, 1981. The attorneys general had ample time to include the Karnas complaint in their AMENDED Complaint of 7/7/81, however, it appears at that time they rejected this complaint. Dr. Knaide was the dentist who referred Mrs. Karnas to Dr. Greenwald for root canal therapy in February 1978. Dr. Knaide was deposed by Steven Kern in April 1982. At that time the attorneys general had not included Linda Karnas in their complaint. Therefore Dr. Knaide was not questioned with regard to Linda Karnas. He was not involved in filing the complaint.

 

 

            Linda Karnas was included in the SECOND AMENDED Complaint of August 23, 1982.

            On April 7, 1982, Mrs. Greenwald interviewed Mrs. Karnas in the presence of her husband in their home. A small tape recorder was used for accuracy. Mr. and Mrs. Karnas stated they had met with the dental association and four dentists who stated Dr. Greenwald was incompetent in his treatment of her and his treatment of others. She refused to disclose the names of the dentists but said they would be there in court. Mr. Karnas stated "Do you think four other dentists can be wrong? Do you really?" Continuing..." And I'm really pissed, that a guy comes from out of state, here, and capitalizes on the ignorance of hicks, you know. I'm just sad that a person would pawn himself off as a dentist. The guy is a quack. He's no good. All he did was take money from my wife...you can tell Dr. Greenwald that I hope he loses his license and I hope he leaves the state!" During the course of her deposition, May 3, 1983, Mrs. Karnas denied most of what she had told Mrs. Greenwald in the interview, and denied meeting the four dentists from the "Association."

 

 

Spreading this kind of prejudice and hat€ was a tool used by individual local dentists involved in filing the complaints as a means of destroying the reputation and profession of Dr. Greenwald. Obviously the same tactic was used to enlist the services of the attorneys general in their conspiracy of destruction. They knew as much about dentistry as Mr. Karnas. Their case was based solely on the information provided by these same dentists. Yet they failed to conduct a proper investigation of the charges, failed to interview patients, witnesses, and even the defendant himself. As a result, their case was a sham. Unfortunately, once they realized they had no case, they didn't stop; they just pushed harder, adding nonsense and irrelevant charges of improper record keeping.

 

 

Between 1981 and 1984, fifteen Bangor area dentists were visited by certain individuals posing as patients who were friendly to Dr. Greenwald's cause. They carried a small concealed tape recorder. The evidence brought forth revealed a conspiracy to destroy Dr. Greenwald with outright slander, prejudice, hatred and lies. The same brainwashing was obviously used on Attorney General, James Tierney, who was quoted in The Lewiston Sun Journal, March 19, 1981 as saying "The allegations against Dr. Greenwald are very serious, and this office will be putting a very high priority on prosecuting this case before the Administrative Court." Tierney called the case "Absolutely unique."

 

 

The complaints in the SECOND AMENENDED Complaint, also involved those same dentists as in the first: Dr. William Deighan; his associate, Dr. Jeffrey Fister; Dr. Charles Ramsberger; Dr. Shaun Dowd, Dr. Gary Fessler; Dr. David Talley and Dr. Henry Woodbrey. Charges of incompetent record keeping were added to each individual complaint in the REVISED SECOND AMENDED Complaint. There is no requirement under Maine law that adequate records be kept or maintained. Adding these charges would require counsel for the defendant to question all dentists deposed with regards to the records they kept to ascertain record keeping standards for the State of Maine. During the depositions of October 1981, no questions were asked with regard to record keeping. The same applied to depositions conducted in April 1982. However, Steve Kern did ask questions with regard to record keeping during the depositions conducted in May 1983 and found those dentists deposed: Dowd, Deighan, Talley, Fessler, Fister, Deighan, McCarthy and a physician, Dr. Peters, were all incompetent in the area of record keeping according to the standards set by the State's own expert witness, Dr. William Dowden. Copies of discovery received from the State included that of subsequent treating dentists of the patients named in the complaints. These records were also "incompetent" according to the standards set by Dr. Dowden, who was an assistant professor of endodontics (root canal therapy) at the University Of Connecticut School Of Dentistry. His experience in general practice in the "real world" was limited. His experience resides in the province of academics. An example of this is his continual reference to the phrase "diagnostic data base." Terminology that none of the deposed dentists recognized or understood when questioned.

 

            With regard to the complaint involving Joann Parker:

Filed in the SECOND AMENDED Complaint of August 23, 1982

            "In or around the fall of 1980 Joann Parker visited defendant to obtain root canal therapy for her tooth. "Ms. Parker made at least four visits to defendant for such therapy, paying defendant over $200 for services rendered. After four visits and $200, defendant had not completed the root canal therapy, and had not properly medicated and sealed the root of the treated tooth. In this condition, the tooth was vulnerable to infection causing Ms. Parker serious pain.

            "Ms. Parker visited defendant in reliance on defendant's advertisement that

root canal therapy would be performed for $175.

            "Ms. Parker was required to obtain the services of another dentist (Dr. Henry

Woodbrey) at additional expense, to complete the root canal therapy."

 

The Parker complaint was brought to the attention of the attorneys general sometime in February 1981. Marvin Ellis, investigator for the attorney general, interviewed Dr. Henry Woodbrey on March 10, 1981 with regard to his subsequent treatment of Ms. Parker. Dr. James Griffith, an employee of Dentalcare, began the treatment on Ms. Parker's first visit to the office, and continued the treatment on her second visit. He treated Ms. Parker on a total of four visits, Dr. Greenwald saw her on three visits. When the State's AMENDED Complaint was filed July 7, 1981, Joann Parker was not included. In October 1981 Steve Kern, counsel for defendant, conducted depositions of the dentists and patients involved in the ORIGINAL Complaint and the AMENDED Complaint. However, because Joann Parker was not included in either Complaint, Dr. Woodbrey's dental records for this patient could not be subpoenaed and Dr. Woodbrey's recollection of Ms. Parker was vague.

 

Joann Parker came to the office on an emergency basis because she was in pain. She did not make an appointment for root canal therapy. On her first visit she saw Dr. Griffith, who provided her with a medicated filling, and prescribed pain medication and antibiotics. He suggested he monitor the tooth because there was a possibility she may not have needed root canal therapy. Ms. Parker returned the following evening and root canal therapy was started by Dr. Griffith. An allowance was granted to Ms. Parker for the previous emergency visit and she was charged $185 for the root canal. (The regular advertised fee for a molar root canal) Her last appointment was with Dr. Griffith on January 20, 1981, at which time he opened the tooth to drain. Ms. Parker cancelled her next appointment and never returned. A major problem with Ms. Parker, (a university student in the midst of mid-term exams,) was the antibiotics prescribed apparently weren't doing the job. If she was taking them as prescribed. On February 23, 1981 Ms. Parker wrote to Dr. Greenwald requesting a refund. Since the treatment had not been completed, Dr. Greenwald refunded Ms. Parker the full $185.

Again the attorneys general were misinformed, based on Dr. Woodbrey's statements. Ms. Parker did not pay over $200 for the treatment, as alleged, and pay for the services of another dentist; Woodbrey, as alleged "was not at additional expense.”

 

The attorneys general filed the Joann Parker complaint based on information received from Dr. Henry Woodbrey. The State made no attempt to interview Joann Parker, Dr. Greenwald or Dr. Griffith. It appeared they did not know he (Griffith) was involved in the treatment of Ms. Parker. They also did not request Dr. Greenwald's records of Ms. Parker before filing the complaint.

 

Mrs. Greenwald visited Ms. Parker at her dormitory at the University of Maine campus in Bangor on April 13, 1982. A small tape recorder was used for accuracy. According to Ms. Parker, Dr. Woodbrey suggested she file a complaint against Dr. Greenwald and told her to call the President of the Board of Dental Examiners, Dr. Walter Higgins. Ms. Parker stated "'Cause when I called the Board of Examiners, when I told them who it was, (Dr. Greenwald) He just kind of chuckled. I remember him (Higgins) chuckling. And I was like...I said to him why, what's the problem? He said "we have had other complaints." Dr. Woodbrey also told Ms. Parker "You know this is not the first time this has happened, you're not the only one that has gone to Dr. Greenwald and has had problems with his work and has had to go to other people. You know you ought to think about calling the Board of Dental Examiners."

Mrs. Greenwald asked Ms. Parker, "So when Dr. Woodbrey saw you. He increased the dosage of Erythromycin?" Parker: "By the time he saw me (Woodbrey) I'd stopped taking it for about two weeks. The tooth was open. The infection...see I thought the infection was gone, and the Erythromycin started to make me sick, very nauseous." Mrs. Greenwald: "But the infection wasn't gone when you went to Dr. Woodbrey?" Parker: "No, it was still infected. So when I went back to him (Woodbrey) I said well, I've been taking these for quite a while I don't know if they're going to do any good. I was talking to Dr. Woodbrey. He said, well, he told me to stop taking them. I said well, I stopped taking them for two weeks. Well he said we can try taking it as a mass dosage." NOTE: Not taking the antibiotics as prescribed could well be the reason for the ongoing infection.

 

The attorneys general filed the Joann Parker complaint with the SECOND AMENDED Complaint of August 23, 1982, when they had knowledge of the complaint in March 1981. (See Ellis/ Woodbrey interview March 11, 1981) Dr. Woodbrey had been deposed by counsel for the defendant on two separate occasions (10/6/81 and 4/20/82) at considerable expense. The attorneys general were aware of this and waited until after those depositions to file their complaint which was obviously rejected earlier. The attorneys general had conducted no further investigation of the complaint by August 1982. So why did they wait?

 

On January 12, 1983 the attorneys general filed the REVISED SECOND AMENDED Complaint including Joann Parker. Deleted was how much Ms. Parker paid for the treatment and the "additional expense". Added to the charge were charges of incompetent record keeping. No mention was made of Dr. Griffith's participation in the treatment. However, Dr. Greenwald was charged for not referring Ms. Parker to a specialist in root canal therapy. Dr. Woodbrey was not a specialist in root canal therapy.

 

The REVISED SECOND AMENDED Complaint filed January 12, 1983, stated:

"In November 1980, Joann Parker visited defendant for treatment of an aching tooth. Defendant performed root canal therapy on this tooth.

In undertaking this treatment defendant incompetently failed to perform and/or record the following:

a. the use of a rubber dam;

b. the taking of working length radiographs;

c. the use of medicaments."

 

The REVISED SECOND AMENDED Complaint was based on Dr. Dowden's (Assistant professor of Endodontics, Univ. of Conn) conclusions. However, it appears Dr. Dowden was unaware that Ms. Parker was also seen by Dr. Griffith. Also, standard procedure in doing root canal therapy is taking x-rays; diagnostic, working length and post fill. Except for the last, post fill x-rays (taken upon completion of treatment) all others were taken and turned over to the attorneys general. Presumably, they would pass them on to Dr. Dowden. It appears Dr. Dowden doesn't read the records too thoroughly and has a formula he uses as a paid expert witness.

 

Dr. Woodbrey provided little information with regard to Ms. Parker at his second deposition on April 20, 1982. Since no official complaint had been filed concerning Joann Parker she was not a part of the deposition. However, during the course of his deposition, Dr. Woodbrey perjured himself on several occasions.

 

In March 1982, a loyal patient of Dr. Greenwald's, Bob Biradi, volunteered to see Dr. Henry Woodbrey in his office on two separate occasions. Bob told Woodbrey that Dr. Greenwald started root canal treatment and the tooth was now bothering him and he couldn't reach Dr. Greenwald. A friend of Bob's suggested he see Woodbrey. The discussion led to Dr. Greenwald's incompetence, etc., etc., initiated by Woodbrey... Dr. Woodbrey volunteered the following information:” I’ve seen too many of his botched root canals. And I'm just as busy as he is." Bob:” He botches these all the time or what?" Woodbrey: "He hasn't got eighteen cases of complaints...at the attorney generals office 'cause he's a nice guy." "We've spent...the Dental Association has spent about $7500 already, of their own money. This is just the dentists themselves. The attorney general's office has spent ten or fifteen thousand investigating. And the thing just sits there." Bob: "You guys as dentists are trying. You spent money" Woodbrey: "Dental Association did. But we have no power. We can't take licenses." Regarding advertising: Woodbrey: "And now including dentistry. Unfortunately that was the Federal Trade Commission's contribution to the consumers of this country. To allow people to go out and advertise and rip-off...legally." Continuing: Woodbrey: "We had retail dentists in this community 25 years ago. Worse kind of dentistry you could ever possibly imagine." Bob: "Seems you guys should be able to get together and...Woodbrey: "Oh we have. We've gotten together a lot. But we can't fight the Federal Trade Commission. Politians." Bob: "How many dentists did you say there are in this state? They ought to do something." "Yeah, well we spent plenty of money trying to do something. We're still working on it. But when you have a Governor who knows more about dentistry, and an attorney general knows more about it than dentists do why...it's a tough situation." Woodbrey continues: "The only reason I'm doing it is to get you out of pain. Not to help him at all. I'll tell you...nobody...no dentist in this whole area would help him do anything except pack up and leave the state of Maine. 'Cause that would be the best thing for the whole...for everybody in the state of Maine. Now I wouldn't sit here and say those things unless I knew I had good firm ground to stand on. I guarantee you that partner."

 

Bob Biradi also visited Dr. Shaun Dowd on March 26, 1982, about the same tooth. The following is a few excerpts from the conversation:

 

 

Dowd: "I've got zero respect for that person. I don't know if you've gotten that from what I've said so far. But it's a bad news operation. He's a bad news person. And I don't say that about my colleagues, unless they're really bad news, which he is."

 

 

Bob: "But if he does this why is he here? I don't know."

Dowd: "We're trying to pull his license. We've got a stack of things against him...that high. (indicating) But in this State it has to go through the attorney general's office to do anything. In other states the Board of Dental Examiners can automatically pull a license if they have sufficient cause. We've got more than sufficient cause."

Bob: "You mean "we" you guys in this office or?.."

Dowd: "No. The Maine Dental Association. All the other dentists in this area and in..throughout the State."

Bob: "He's that bad as far as what he does or...?"

Dowd: "Everything about him. His operation. Him personally. The other things...the cute little numbers that he's done in his office. And outside his office. Incredible things. He's a bad apple, okay."

Bob: "Because of this you're trying to get his license revoked?"

Dowd: "Sure, yeah. Cause he has the potential of hurting people out there."

Bob:     "But he hasn't.   I mean...has he?"

Dowd: "Almost."

Bob: "They're not getting the high quality work there?"

Dowd: "Uh Uh!. And he has a real potential for hurting some people over there. He's just a black mark on the whole profession."

Bob: "How did he get where he is then. If he's got...?"

Dowd: "Silver tongued son of a gun."

 

 

Donna Cole visited Dr. Shaun Dowd on May 10, 1982:

Dr. Dowd was suggesting to Donna that Dr. Greenwald may have performed root canal therapy on a tooth which didn't require it.

Dowd: "And maybe the root canal might not have been necessary. Now, might not. Maybe, you know. But he's certainly done these things before. He's famous for it."

Donna: "You mean over doing. Doing too many root canals? Is that it?"

Dowd: "Least little toothache, is a root canal, you know. Because they're lucrative for him. And he is absolutely bad news, you know. I mean I've seen some incredible things come into this office. Criminal things, you know. I just know so many bad things about Dr. Greenwald and I want to be very honest with you. I don't know if you've ever heard anything..."

Donna: "You know at work you hear gossip, you know in the teacher's room or whatever. Some woman said something about he sexually assaulted some people or something."

Dowd: "That's not gossip. That's the truth. I and that's documented. We've been trying for over a year to take his license away."

Donna: "Who's we? You mean area den