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 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. Some of the things he's done for some really indigent people, they've had to scrape together all this kind of money to pay him up front, for doing something that wont last six months. And you know the poor people they...one lady said she had to pay with her food stamps to get it done."

Donna: "Oh, you mean someone had to pay...like money, in order to have the dental treatment done?"

Dowd: "Sure, sure, right up front. And these people can't afford that. Yet he talked them into it, and it's absolutely criminal what he did to that person. The problem in this State is that, the Maine Board of Dental Examiners, which is not the Maine Dental Association now, but there is a Board which certifies, like dentists coming in, you know, licensure. But that body does not have the power to revoke a license. But what we have to do in this state is...we have to gather the evidence, it has to go through the attorney general's office."

Donna: "Meaning you the dentists have to do this yourselves?"

Dowd: "Yeah, yeah. The Dental Association has done it. Has put all these complaints together from different patients. And we put together all this evidence and present it to the Board of Dental Examiners who have in turn, they are the Plaintiffs in this case, through the attorney general's office it has to go through the courts, and it takes forever and a day. In the meantime this guy has a real potential for hurting people. I mean he's done things like prescribe adult dosage of narcotics for a five year old. And for a little five year old kid...an adult dosage, you know could kill the kid really, you know. Putting kids to sleep with nitrous oxide. 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."

The above conversations were tape recorded for accuracy.

 

Mrs. Greenwald called upon a dental assistant, Sally, who had worked for Dr. Greenwald for two days then left. The conversation was tape recorded for accuracy. Her response when asked about what Dr. Dowd and his assistant discussed: (without mentioning Dr. Dowd's name)

Sally: "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!" Sally's husband came into the room and Sally proceeded to tell him. His response was the same. He was shocked. Sally didn't know anyone named Judy, but had been introduced to a girl in her neighbors home who she recalled was a dental assistant who worked for Dr. Dowd.

 

Dr. Shaun Dowd was deposed by Steven Kern on May 3, 1983:

 

Kern: "Have you gone around telling things to people about Dr. Greenwald that you do not have first hand knowledge of?" Dowd: "No."

Kern: "Never have?"

Dowd: "No."

Dowd: "To repeat, unless I have first hand knowledge, I don't make that a part of my judgment about a person."

Kern: "What else have you heard about Dr. Greenwald that, if true, would be improper or you would consider improper?"

Dowd: "I have heard about his...what's alleged to have taken place in his office regarding sexual advances towards patients."

Kern: "Tell me what you know about it?"

Dowd: "If that is true, I would consider it very much a problem."

Kern: "Tell me what you know about it?"

Dowd: "I don't know a whole lot about it other than he allegedly has made sexual advances towards more than one of his patients. That's all I know about it."

Kern: "You have no specifics at all?"

Dowd: "No. specifics."

Kern: "You don't know if it's true or not, right?"

Dowd: "Don't know if it's true."

Kern: "Have you not discussed those allegations with anybody?"

Dowd: "To repeat, unless I have first hand knowledge of a problem, I don't talk about it, and I don't use it to form a judgment of another person." Kern: "Have you ever been involved in any activity designed to attempt to remove Dr. Greenwald's license to practice dentistry?"

Dowd: "Yes, I attended a meeting.

Kern: "What do you know about Dr. Greenwald's use of nitrous oxide?"

Dowd: "Nothing."

Kern: "Did you ever tell anyone that Dr. Greenwald is bad?"

Dowd: "Bad what?"

Kern: "Bad as a person or a dentist?"

Dowd: "Not that I recall."

Kern: "Do you know of any entity named Dentalcare?"

Dowd: "Ironically, yes."

Kern: "Ironically, is that Dr. Greenwald's office?"

Dowd: "Yes."

Kern: "Have you ever told anybody that that's a very, very bad

place?"

Dowd: "No."

Kern: "Did you ever tell anybody that it is not a very good place to

go?"

Dowd: "I could have."

Kern: "Who would you have told that to?"

Dowd: "A patient."

Kern: "Why would you have told a patient that?"

Dowd: "To protect the patient."

Kern: "Do you believe that patients need protection by you from Dr. Greenwald?" Dr. Dowd's attorney, Louis Vafiades warned him not to answer the question. Kern: "Have you ever told anyone that Dr. Greenwald has done a lot of damage to patients?"

Dowd: "I may have."

Kern: "What damage has Dr. Greenwald done to patients that you are aware of?"

Dowd: "I'm not sure that I ever told anyone that."

Kern: "Do you have any documentation that Dr. Greenwald ever sexually assaulted anyone?"

Dowd: "None."

Kern: "have you ever been involved in instigating the Maine Dental Association to seek action against Dr. Greenwald?"

Dowd: "I don't know."

Kern: "You don't know?"

Dowd: "I don't know."

Kern: "You may have been?" Dr. Dowd was instructed by his attorney not to answer the question.

Kern: "Have you ever told a patient that Dr. Greenwald has propositioned patients, molested them or accosted them?"

Dowd: "I don't know."

Kern: "Do you have any personal knowledge of his propositioning patients, molesting them or accosting them?"

Dowd: "No, I don't."

Kern: "Do you have any other information that Dr. Greenwald provided unnecessary dental care?"

Dowd: "No."

Kern: "Have you ever told anyone that Dr. Greenwald treated somebody and they had to pay for his treatment with food stamps?"

Dowd: "Never."

Kern: "Are you aware of any occasion where Dr. Greenwald has overdosed a patient with nitrous oxide?"

Dowd: "No."

Kern: "Were you ever involved in a conversation where Dr. Greenwald was accused of sexually assaulting a dental assistant who was working for him for two days."

Dowd: "Yes."

Kern: "When was that?"

Dowd: "About six months ago."

Kern: "Who told you that?"

Dowd: "I believe it Was my dental assistant." "I don't know if it was my previous assistant or the one I have now.”

Kern: "What was her name?"

Dowd: "Donna Connor."

Kern: "What's the name of your current assistant?"

Dowd: "Patricia Jerrel."

Kern: "Did you ever have an assistant named Judy?"

Dowd: "Yes."

Kern: "What's her last name?"

Dowd: "Barker."

Kern: "Is she still Dowd: "No. She left

Kern: "Did you ever provided concerning Dowd: "No."

Kern: "Who was present when you had this conversation concerning her or were you involved in a conversation...?"

Dowd: "As I recall, it was just the other person and myself, whoever the person with you. about six months ago." ascertain whether or not that information this dental assistant was accurate or not?"

Kern: "Do you know if there was a patient present?"

Dowd: "No."

Kern: "You do not know or no, there was not a patient present?"

Dowd: "As I recall, there was not a patient present."

Kern: "Do you do any advertising doctor?"

Dowd: "Yes, I do."

Kern: "What kind of advertising?"

Dowd: "Satisfied patients."

 

Mrs. Greenwald telephoned Ms. Judy Barker and discussed the "assistant allegation" with her. Ms. Barker denied making the statement. Ms. Barker did confirm that Dr. Dowd made derogatory statements to any patient willing to listen, and to every patient who had been seen by Dr. Greenwald.

 

 

Louis Vafiades, attorney, represented four of the five dentists in the 1983 Civil Rights suit Dr. Greenwald filed against them. Mr. Vafiades' office was also used by the Maine Dental Association's attorneys for the purpose of interviewing all three women involved in the sexual complaints conducted in 1980. His office also represented Debra Wallace's psychiatrist, arguing that her psychiatric records not be turned over as evidence for the defense. Dr. Deighan's son in-law was a member of the firm representing the psychiatrist, Dr. Laurence Salveson.

 

 

Dr. William Deighan was visited by a patient carrying a small tape recorder on December 28, 1981:

 

 

Dr. Deighan told a patient the following: "Well, it's unfortunate Dentalcare is...ayuh, that fellow, Dr. Greenwald, we're trying awfully hard to get his license away, that's all I'm gonna say about it." This conversation was similarly recorded.

Dr. Deighan was deposed on May 3, 1983 by Steven Kern:

 

 

Kern:    "Have you ever told anybody that you were trying to take Dr. Greenwald's license away?"

Deighan: "No."

Kern:    "Did you ever tell anybody that you were participating in trying to take Dr. Greenwald's license away?"

Deighan: "I'm sure I have mentioned it to other dentists."

Kern:    "Other than dentists?"

Deighan: "Not as far as I recall."

 

 

Dr. Deighan was responsible for filing 5 of the complaints with the Board of Dental Examiners. On February 29, 1980 in a letter to Dr. Crites, Secretary of the Board of Dental Examiners, he wrote with regard to Dr. Greenwald: "If there is anything that can be done to revoke his license, we would all be very appreciative."

 

 

With regard to the complaint of Susan More:

Filed with the SECOND AMENDED Complaint of 8/23/82

The complaint charged Dr. Greenwald with "Inducing Mrs. More to undergo relatively expensive root canal therapy rather than having the tooth extracted, without proper basis and without disclosing to Ms. More the potential risks and adverse consequences of such therapy."

Dr. Greenwald explained to Mrs. More the percentage of success with root canal treatment. That's all he could do other than telling the patient to call him if she had any difficulties. The complaint continued to say "Dr. Greenwald prescribed a pain killer for Mrs. More, which made her sick." Again it's impossible to know how a patient will respond to medication unless the patient states that she is allergic to that particular medication. The final part of the complaint stated, "Mrs. More was required to obtain the services of another dentist to complete the root canal therapy at additional expense."

 

The complaint came in the form of a letter to Dr. Gary Fessler from Susan More dated July 22, 1980. The complaint was filed more than two years after Mrs. More's letter to Dr. Fessler. The attorneys general knew of the More complaint before March 1981, when Marvin Ellis, investigator for the attorney general, interviewed Susan More and Dr. Gary Fessler. Yet no action was taken and the complaint was not included in the AMENDED Complaint of July 7, 1981. The Board of Dental Examiners was made aware of the complaint in a letter dated August 13, 1980. Steven Kern, counsel for Dr. Greenwald, deposed Dr. Gary Fessler in October 1981. However, since the More complaint was not included at that time, Dr. Fessler was not questioned with regard to Susan More and his records for her treatment were not subpoenaed.

Mrs. More wrote the letter of July 22, 1980 at the request of Dr. Fessler. Dr. Fessler then forwarded the letter to the Board of Dental Examiners.

 

On April 12, 1982, Mrs. Greenwald visited Mrs. More at her home and interviewed her with regard to her complaint. A small tape recorder was used for accuracy.

Mrs. More stated her chief complaint was that she wanted the tooth extracted and she felt Dr. Greenwald would not extract it. Finances were a key factor. On the date of the interview, April 12, 1982, Mrs. More still had the tooth, almost two years later. She stated she had gone to "Dr. Fessler who was going to complete the root canal therapy, but after the second or third visit, with the complication...he put a filling in it, and he said you decide what you want to do... but it broke off and I haven't been back." The treatment was never completed and Mrs. More went to Dr. Daniel McCarthy, an oral surgeon, who extracted the tooth in May 1982. She stated Dr. Fessler asked her to write a letter of complaint against Dr. Greenwald.

Were the attorneys general not aware that Dr. Fessler was unsuccessful in his attempt to complete Mrs. More's treatment? If Dr. Greenwald "induced Mrs. More to incur relatively expensive root canal therapy rather than have the tooth extracted" as the Complaint states, and Mrs. More wanted the tooth out, did Dr. Fessler also "induce" Mrs. More to continue with root canal therapy at additional expense?"

 

On January 12, 1983 the attorneys general filed their REVISED SECOND AMENDED Complaint which again included Susan More. The Complaint now included incompetent record keeping. Maine has no laws requiring that adequate records be kept. Once again, the Complaint was inaccurate.

 

Mrs. More wrote her letter of complaint to Dr. Fessler on July 22, 1980. When deposed by Steve Kern on May 3, 1983, she could not remember much at all and answered "I can't recall" to the majority of questions asked.

 

With regard to the complaint involving Elaine Prudhomme:

The Supplemental Complaint of Elaine Prudhomme was brought by the attorneys general as an emergency complaint requiring an emergency hearing for the "Safety and Welfare of the Public of Maine." In the initial hearing, with no witnesses for the defense, (Dr. Greenwald was not present, Mrs. Greenwald was). Steven Kern argued the case before Judge Cleaves as the plaintiff produced unannounced expert witnesses. The hearing lasted six hours. Dr. Greenwald's license was suspended until a full hearing could be scheduled.

The attorneys general proposed a hearing be scheduled in one month with the knowledge that Dr. Greenwald's business could not survive being closed down for one month. Steven Kern pushed for one week. A full hearing was scheduled in one week on November 22, 1982 in Portland, Maine. The trial before Judge Dana Cleaves lasted nine and one half hours with expert witnesses testifying for both sides. The cost of the trial to Dr. Greenwald, which included loss of business (since the office remained closed for a week), and legal fees, was approximately $15,000.

The State claimed Dr. Greenwald acted negligently in not prescribing antibiotics for his patient, Elaine Prudhomme. Dr. Jeffrey Fister and Dr. William Deighan saw Mrs. Prudhomme after Dr. Greenwald treated her. Dr. Fister admitted Mrs. Prudhomme to the hospital and ordered intravenous antibiotics.

Thirteen head and chest x-rays were also taken of the patient at Dr. Fister's request. Testifying on behalf of Dr. Greenwald, was Dr. Richard Rose, a physician and researcher, Harvard Medical School graduate and one of the five leading experts in the country on infectious diseases. He stated in the case of Mrs. Prudhomme that antibiotics were contraindicated, as were the thirteen x-rays taken. He agreed with Dr. Greenwald's determination that the patient only need be monitored for several days, following treatment.

Judge Cleaves of the Administrative Court, found in favor of Dr. Greenwald and his license was restored. The attorneys general had requested the court grant them court costs should they prevail. They did not prevail. However, Dr. Greenwald was not compensated for his losses. The attorneys general had an opportunity to appeal within ten days. They did not. They then filed a motion with the court to include the treatment of Elaine Prudhomme in their REVISED SECOND AMENDED Complaint. Steven Kern filed a motion with the court to exclude the issue and the care of Elaine Prudhomme from the pleadings and from consideration at trial. The motion was filed 3/15/83.

Steven Kern wrote in his motion to the court: "In the instant situation, Dr. Greenwald's license has already been at jeopardy as a result of the charges relating to the treatment and care of Elaine Prudhomme. Indeed Dr. Greenwald has already suffered through a short suspension of his license as well as the trauma and expense of defending himself against the baseless charges that Dr. Greenwald cared improperly for Mrs. Prudhomme. The State has had the opportunity to bring Dr. Greenwald to trial, has introduced expert testimony, and has, in all respects, fully tried this matter before the court. Now that the State's case has been disproved, through great expenditures of time and effort by Dr. Greenwald, the State now seeks an additional bite at the apple. Under the law and all notions of due process and fundamental fairness, this cannot be permitted."

 

The attorneys general considered the Prudhomme complaint the most serious charge they had against Dr. Greenwald. They also considered it their best shot at revoking his license. After all, a woman was hospitalized. "For the Safety and Welfare of the Public of Maine."

 

 

They lost. But it only made them more determined to win.

 

Soon after the trial, Dr. Greenwald's attorney, Steven Kern, received a phone call from Dr. Richard Rose, defendant's expert witness in the Prudhomme case. Dr. Rose stated he received a call from Deputy Attorney General, Rufus Brown. Brown asked Dr. Rose if he would at some time in the future be a witness for the State of Maine on other matters. Dr. Rose declined. He rarely testified as an expert witness unless the case involved child abuse, or was a matter about which he felt strongly. (Abuse of antibiotics) Mr. Brown then told Dr. Rose "He had been on the wrong side and that Aaron Greenwald was bad news." Dr. Rose was appalled by the comments made by Rufus Brown. The telephone call and comments, by a deputy attorney general, were not only appalling, but totally inappropriate and unethical.

 

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. Fister did not. Mrs. Prudhomme got a bill for $1400 from the hospital, which she couldn't pay, in addition to going through unnecessary 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 close Dentalcare down... for the "Safety and Welfare of the People of Maine."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

GREENWALD - EVIDENCE 3

 

 

With regard to the complaint of Richard Card:

On January 4, 1983, the attorneys general wrote to Dr. Greenwald's Bangor attorney, Robert Treworgy, requesting Dr. Greenwald's records of Richard Card. Steven Kern, Dr. Greenwald's out of state attorney, filed a motion in Administrative Court in response to this request, to quash and or invalidate demand for records of Dr. Greenwald with regard to Richard Card. He wrote: "This demand for the records of Richard Card, a patient who is not part of the proceeding before the Administrative Court is part of a calculated and planned harassment campaign on the part of the Board of Dental Examiners and the attorney general acting on the Board's behalf. This campaign is a matter which is currently the subject of pending federal litigation. And continued harassment while litigation is pending is evidence of bad faith. Support for the claim that the Board and its attorney are engaged in a harassment campaign is shown by the series of Complaints, Revised Complaint, Amended Complaint, Supplemental Complaint, Second Amended Complaint and later Revised Second Amended Complaint. This continuing series of demands and new charges results from an attempt to harass, intimidate and inconvenience Dr. Greenwald. The demands of assistant attorney general, by way of letter, are not lawfully issued and should, therefore be invalidated and or quashed."

 

 

The federal litigation to which Mr. Kern alluded, was a 15 million dollar civil rights lawsuit filed on behalf of Dr. Greenwald in September 1982, against all members of the Board of Dental Examiners, five Bangor dentists; Drs Deighan, Dowd, Woodbrey, Ramsberger, Talley, an attorney for the Maine Dental Association; Malcolm Lyons and the attorney general himself; James Tierney.

 

 

On April 14, 1983, the attorneys general filed the Richard Card complaint in Administrative Court.

As in all the other pending cases, Dr. Greenwald was never contacted by the Board to answer to the complaint of Richard Card. The Board later stated they had written to Dr. Greenwald, "sometime in March 1983, requesting copies of his records." All previous correspondence Dr Greenwald received from the Board (two letters which had nothing to do with any complaints) were sent certified mail return receipt. The Board did not remember the date of their letter, nor can they produce a copy or a certified receipt because it does not exist. However, the attorneys general, on behalf of the Board, allowed the Board to file a complaint charging Dr. Greenwald with failure to respond to the Board's request for an explanation of his treatment of Mr. Card. They claim that his failure constitutes unprofessional conduct for which the Administrative Court may revoke or suspend his license.

 

 

Ironically, the Board could bring sanctions against Dr. Greenwald for not responding to their requests for an explanation of his treatment of a patient, yet, they filed complaints against him, without requesting his records his explanation of his treatment of a patient.

The deposition of Dr. William Deighan, Jr., took place on May 2, 1983. Dr. Deighan's testimony with regard to the treatment of diabetics; upon which the State's case involving Mr. Card was based, literally wiped out the State's case. With this knowledge the attorneys general made no effort to rectify their wrongdoing.

 

NOTE: Mr. and Mrs. Card had filed a malpractice suit against Dr. Greenwald for a large sum of money. Mr. Card stopped payment on the (credit card) $320 with which he had paid Dr. Greenwald for treatment. Dr. Greenwald filed a small claims action against Mr. Card for the $320. The malpractice case was settled in this way: Mr. Card dropped his malpractice suit against Dr. Greenwald. Dr. Greenwald then dropped his small claims action against Mr. Card.

 

 

 

What does that say about the validity of the State's complaint?

 

 

 

            The Complaint involving Debbie Walker is an insult to anyone's intelligence:

            Filed with the SECOND AMENDED Complaint of 8/23/82

"In or around May of 1980, Mrs. Debbie Walker made an appointment with defendant to have her daughter's tooth extracted. Mrs. Walker requested that her daughter be put to sleep (general anesthesia) for the extraction. Defendant's employee represented to Mrs. Walker that her daughter would be put to sleep.

"In fact, defendant and his office did not have the ability and/ or capacity to administer general anesthesia to Mrs. Walker's daughter, as Mrs. Walker later discovered. Mrs. Walker was required to seek dental treatment for her daughter from another dentist."

Dr. William Deighan wrote a letter to the Board of Dental Examiners with regard to Mrs.Walker. He wrote:

"I feel that if Dr. Greenwald is putting patients to sleep with his little knowledge of anesthesia, that this could be very dangerous, as he could actually KILL a patient through his incompetence. I feel that something should be done to put him out of practice. I hope that appropriate action will be taken." (May 5, 1980)

On May 5, 1980 Mrs Debbie Walker signed a letter addressed to Dr. Gary Fessler, who at that time was president of the Penobscot Valley Dental Society. The letter was typed by Dr. Ramsberger's secretary (Dr. Ramsberger was Fessler's associate) on his business letterhead, as the patient waited. The letter read:

"This letter is a complaint against the Bangor Dental Center on Union Street in Bangor. After speaking with Dr. Ramsberger this morning

I decided to voice my opinion. (skipping ahead)

"I made a call to Dr. Deighan, I found that there was no one qualified to put Dena to sleep at the center. I cancelled the appointment Monday morning.

"What this amounts to is, I would have taken my child to a dentist, thinking there would have been no pain for her. In that one visit she, being a child, could easily have lost her trust in me and a dentist, probably all dentists."

 

On May 20, 1980 Dr. Charles Ramsberger wrote the following letter to the Board of Dental Examiners:

"I am writing in reference to Dr. Aaron Greenwald.

            "A new patient in our office related an incident of how Dr.

Greenwald was planning to put her nine year old to sleep for an extraction. (skipping ahead)

"She discovered Dr. Greenwald did not have any way to give the child general anesthesia, but instead had only nitrous oxide for conscious sedation.

"This woman was lied to about general anesthesia, not given any prior sedation instructions on food and drink, and generally mismanaged. Can anything be done to prevent this type of deception from happening, as well as the misuse of nitrous oxide?"

 

Neither the Board of Dental Examiners nor the attorneys general made any effort to interview Dr. Greenwald or his staff with regard to this complaint. They could have phoned the office and asked about general anesthesia without identifying themselves. They could have sent someone into the office to inquire. But they did nothing. However, they did sent their investigator, Marvin Ellis, to interview Mrs. Walker and the other dentists involved. Mr. Ellis wrote in his report:

(Skipping ahead)

            "The purpose of the visit was to have a first tooth extracted because it was being pushed by a second tooth.

            "Walker talked by telephone to a woman who answered Greenwald's telephone. (Skipping ahead)

            "Walker took her daughter to Ramsberger for further treatment because of having prior treatment by him.

            "Walker had no contact or conversation with Greenwald himself."

 

Mrs. Greenwald visited Mrs. Walker at her home in Silver's Trailer Park in Bangor. Mrs. Walker opened the door and when Mrs. Greenwald introduced herself, she became extremely nervous. The only information Mrs. Greenwald got before the door was slammed in her face was the time of day Mrs. Walker called the office to make the appointment. According to the time mentioned, and the office appointment book, Mrs. Walker must have spoken to Jeanette Watson, the office manager. Jeanette had worked for Dr. Greenwald for over 5 years and there was absolutely no way that Mrs. Walker would have been told her child would receive general anesthesia.

Therefore, Mrs. Walker was either confused or was enduced by the dentists involved in the conspiracy against Dr. Greenwald and his Bangor Dentalcare.

 

The attorneys general knew of the Walker complaint before March 1981. At that time it was rejected, and did not appear in their AMENDED Complaint of July 7, 1981. The Walker complaint was omitted from the RREVISED SECOND AMENDED Complaint by Judge Cleaves.

Dr. Charles Ramsberger, was responsible for the following complaints: Debra Wallace (sexual), Barbara DeGolyer (sexual), Sherry Bell and Debbie Walker (professional incompetence). Dr Ramsberger had the following conversation with a supposed new patient, Eric Petersen, in his office. Eric was the husband of Bangor Dentalcare assistant office manager, Linda Petersen and had volunteered for the assignment. The "patient" was carrying a small concealed tape recorder:

Ramsberger: "He's (Dr. Greenwald) claiming he's putting people to sleep over there. He has no education to put them to sleep. He's using nitrous oxide. He's claiming all sorts of things that aren't true..I've seen patients..."

Eric:     "Nitrous oxide. That's laughing gas."

Ramsberger: "Yeah, laughing gas, I'm not certain..."

Eric:     "That doesn't put you to sleep."

Ramsberger: "No, it doesn't put you to sleep. It would kill you if it put you to sleep.

Eric: "Ooh!"

Ramsberger: "In concentrations that are properly used, it's a good analgesic to help you relax."

Eric:     "I've never used that. All I do is go for Novocain."

Ramsberger: "Well, I had a patient come in and say he's going to put her little girl to sleep and take a tooth out. And she called the hospital and they said you'd better talk to a dental surgeon (Deighan). He's not qualified to put anyone to sleep. He doesn't have the material to do it. Lying to the patient on the phone. So she came in here. She complained to me."

 

NOTE: Dr. Ramsberger never used general anesthesia either. However, Marvin Ellis, Maine State investigator, stated in the report of his interview with Mrs. Walker, "Walker took her daughter to Ramsberger for further treatment because of having had prior treatment by him."

 

As an example of how vindictive the dentists were, and how they were conspiring against Dr. Greenwald, I give you the words of Dr. Shaun Dowd (responsible for the Lisa Burgess complaint) to a supposed new male patient, (Bob Barardi) in his office, ostensibly for treatment, who was carrying a concealed tape recorder:

 

Dowd:  "And he has a real potential for hurting people over there."

Bob:     "Because of the way he does things or..."

Dowd:  "As an example, nitrous oxide is a gas you inhale. It gives you a high, a cheap drunk is what it is, so you don't really care what happens, you know.

Bob: "Right."

Dowd:  "And that's the way it should be worked, but, he puts people to sleep with it. You're not supposed to put people to sleep with that! That's an overdose! That's too much! He doesn't know any better and he doesn't care.  And on another occasion, with a supposed new female patient (Donna Cole) in his office, who was also carrying a concealed tape recorder:

 

Dowd:  "He uses nitrous oxide which is a gas, you know, do you use that?"

Donna: "No. That's laughing gas, you mean, no."

Dowd:  "Yeah, well it's perfectly safe okay, only, if the person using it knows what he's doing. But what he does...he's putting people to sleep with it, which is an overdose."

Donna: "Oh, you can do that with nitrous oxide?"

Dowd:  "Ah ha! You can't! It's dangerous to do that. It then becomes a general anesthetic, and you know you're supposed to have an optimum mixture of oxygen and the nitrous oxide. Patient always stays awake and alert. As a matter of fact, you're supposed to talk to the patient..."

Donna: "To make sure they're still intact there?"

Dowd:  "Yeah. Make sure...but he was putting kids to sleep with it. And he can really hurt people."

Donna: And these things have been documented?"

Dowd:  "Documented!  Documented!

Donna: "Cooh."

 

Dr. Greenwald's office, Dentalcare, received a fair number of calls from individuals who wanted general anesthesia. All employees were told when they were hired and trained, to refer these individuals to oral surgeons Dr. Daniel McCarthy, or (if they chose) to Dr. Deighan. Mrs. Greenwald kept a list of all patients referred to an oral surgeon in 1980. They numbered more than 200 people. The list remains in her possession. Patients were also referred to Dr. John Mabee, periodontist. Individuals who required surgery were referred to Dr. Daniel McCarthy; oral surgeon.

 

 

On May 4, 1983 Dr. Shaun Dowd was deposed by Steven Kern, counsel for Dr. Greenwald:

Kern: "What do you know about Dr. Greenwald's use of Nitrous oxide?"

Dowd: "Nothing."

Kern: "Do you know of any occasion when Dr. Greenwald ever overdosed a patient with nitrous oxide?"

Dowd; "Have I what?"

Kern: "Are you aware of any occasion where Dr. Greenwald has overdosed a patient with nitrous oxide?"

Dowd: "No."

Kern: "Have you ever been involved in any activity designed to attempt to remove Dr. Greenwald's license to practice dentistry?"

Dowd: "Yes, I attended a meeting."

 

 

The complaint involving Florence Thompson was included in the SECOND AMENDED Complaint of August 23, 1982:

The complaint read:

"In or around May of 1981, Florence Thompson visited defendant for treatment and fitting of full upper and partial lower dentures. Mrs. Thompson paid defendant approximately $300 for these services. In preparing Mrs. Thompson's lower jaw for the partial denture defendant and or other persons under his control, failed to remove two tori (bone growths) obstructing the proper fitting of the denture. In addition the lower denture was improperly fashioned such that its line of occlusion was not level across the lower front teeth. The dentures fashioned by defendant or those under his control are not functional, and Mrs. Thompson was required to have new ones made by another dentist, at additional expense."

 

The complaint was filed with the attorneys general, by Dr. William Deighan in a letter dated November 19, 1981, addressed to Assistant Attorney General Michael Richards, without the knowledge or consent of the patient. The attorneys general made no effort to interview Mrs. Thompson or Dr. Greenwald or Dr. Don Dennison, a dentist employed by Dr. Greenwald who participated in the treatment of Mrs. Thompson. Their complaint was based solely on the letter of Dr. William Deighan. Dr. Greenwald made a full upper denture for Mrs. Thompson. She had four remaining teeth in the lower jaw. The condition of the lower teeth justified retaining them and building a lower denture around them. This would provide better retention. Relief was made for the tori mandibularis present. What was taken into account was not only the condition of the teeth, but the age and medical history of the patient. Mrs. Thompson was 84 years old with a history of heart problems, a diabetic, with arthritis and respiratory disease. She was on a special diet, had high blood pressure and was lame. Dr. Greenwald felt the four lower front teeth could be retained over a long enough period of time to justify their retention. Mrs. Thompson had insufficient ridge to hold the denture in place without those four front teeth.

 

 

 

 

NOTE: In an article from a text by Dr. Samuel Charles Miller, late noted periodontist and former chairman of the Department of Periodontology, New York University School of Dentistry, Dr. Miller wrote: "A denture may be fabricated for a patient without removing the toris mandibularis. The toris mandibularis should, where necessary, be carefully relieved and the border of the lingual flange of the lower denture should never terminate upon the toris mandibularis, but should always extend way below it to contact the soft tissues of the floor of the mouth."

Dr. Deighan had not explained to Mrs. Thompson that it was possible for her to wear a denture without removing the toris mandibularis. He also did not explain to her that with little ridge in the lower part of her mouth the possibility of good retention was unlikely. Why should he? Dr Deighan was a tooth puller and tissue exciser not a tooth and tissue saver. Building the lower denture around those teeth would give her added retention. Dr. Greenwald felt it unnecessary for Mrs. Thompson, at her age and with her medical history, to go through any unnecessary surgical procedures.

On April 7, 1982, Mrs. Greenwald visited Mrs. Thompson in her home. The conversation was recorded with a small tape recorder for accuracy.

Mrs. Thompson's grandson was present during the conversation. Mrs. Thompson was a little deaf but managed the conversation without problem. Mrs. Thompson went to Dr. Deighan because he was just down the road from her home. Mrs. Thompson stated Dr. Deighan told her "He

(Greenwald) was not fit to make dentures and he would lose his license and I would have my money refunded. Dr. Deighan said he was not fit to make dentures, and! said, well, I don't want any complaints so he'd lose his license. I'd just like to have my money refunded." Mrs. Greenwald asked. "Did you ask Dr. Deighan to complain for you?" Mrs. Thompson replied: "No, he did it hiself. Dr. Deighan said he's not fit to make dentures." Mrs. Greenwald asked about the four front teeth which Dr. Deighan extracted. Mrs. Thompson stated "There was a little cavity in that one (pointing) in the top. They didn't ache." The whole lower part of her mouth hurt because she needed an adjustment of the denture. Mrs. Greenwald suspected at the time that Dr. Deighan may have extracted the four front teeth unnecessarily, but she didn't say this to Mrs. Thompson.

 

Dr. Greenwald did not believe Mrs. Thompson's four lower front teeth had to be extracted. He believed Dr. Deighan extracted those teeth solely for the purpose of discrediting him in the eyes of the patient, and, so he could write his complaint to the Attorney General. Mrs. Thompson also told Mrs. Greenwald that Dr. Deighan wanted to remove her bone growths. But she wasn't up to it.

Ethically, Dr. Deighan should have, in the interest of the patient, encouraged Mrs. Thompson to go back to Dr. Greenwald and have him adjust the dentures, or give her her money back. However, what he did tell her was not to go back and to go to another dentist to have another denture made. Of course after removing the four lower front teeth he had rendered the lower denture useless to her. After the extractions, Mrs. Thompson told Mrs. Greenwald, her blood pressure went up over 200 and she fell down in her home and hurt herself. She was then placed under the care of a physician for several months. And still she had no teeth. Mrs. Thompson never had "new dentures made, at additional expense" as the State claimed in their complaint. But then, they never bothered to interview her, so how would they know.

 

Mrs. Greenwald returned to visit Mrs. Thompson twice after the first visit, and finally convinced her to return to the office where Dr. Greenwald would adjust the upper denture and remake the lower denture because of the extractions, at no charge, and if Mrs. Thompson was not completely satisfied with the results, then she would get a complete refund of all she had paid. Dr. Greenwald wrote a letter stating those terms which Mrs. Greenwald delivered to Mrs. Thompson. Mrs. Greenwald also offered to drive Mrs. Thompson, at her convenience, to and from the office for each appointment. Mrs. Thompson agreed to return when the weather improved, and when she felt better.

 

 

Dr. William Deighan was deposed by Steven Kern on May 2, 1983, with regard to Florence Thompson:

Kern:    "Do you have x-rays for this patient?"

Deighan: "She had four lower anterior teeth out. I do have an x-ray."

Kern:    "Of the four lower anterior teeth?"

Deighan "Yes."

Kern:    "May I see it, please?"

Deighan: "You can see the tori (bone growth) on it too. Usually you can't always, but that is not diagnostic."

Kern:    "Would you give me your diagnosis of those-four teeth?"

Deighan: "Just a moment please, the film has become somewhat dark. I would have to have a stronger light, but I think..."

Kern:    "You can't render an opinion of the diagnosis of those teeth?"

Deighan: "Not at this time."

Kern:    "Do you have any records indicating your diagnosis of the teeth?"

Deighan: "No."

Kern:    "Do you have any record of your prognosis of the teeth?"

Deighan: "No."

Kern:    "Is there any comment on your record about the quality of those four teeth?"

Deighan: "No."

Kern:    "Do you have any recollection of the quality of those four teeth?"

Deighan: "Patient came in and had them removed. Obviously...! won't say obviously, but she was, as I understood, having difficulty with them, but I don't have it in the record here."

Kern:    "You have nothing in the record indicating that the patient complained of difficulty with those four front teeth?"

Deighan: "No."

Kern:    "You have no diagnosis set forth in your record concerning those four teeth?"

Deighan: "No."

Kern:    "And no prognosis either, correct?"

Deighan: "No."

Kern:    "There is no need to document the patient's complaint with regard to those four teeth?"

Deighan: "Usually that's put down, but in this instance, it was not."

Kern:    "Why not?"

Deighan: "1 don't recall."

 

 

Dr. Deighan's slanderous remarks to Mrs. Thompson prevented her from returning to Dr. Greenwald for an adjustment or to ask for her money back, or to have the denture remade at no additional cost to her. It was totally unethical for Dr. Deighan to say what he did which resulted in Mrs Thompson not doing anything. Mrs. Greenwald was outraged at Dr. Deighan's abuse of an elderly, gentle, kind, and lovely lady.

 

Mrs. Greenwald tried on several occasions to reach Mrs. Thompson by phone; (the phone was equipped with an amplifier), and also by stopping by her home, without success. Either she wasn't home, perhaps in the hospital, or staying elsewhere due to illness.

 

When the REVISED SECOND AMENDED Complaint was filed on January 12, 1983, in Administrative Court, Mrs. Thompson was stricken, per order of Judge Cleaves.

 

 

 

 

SUMMARY

 

 

The attorneys general filed their ORIGINAL COMPLAINT in Admistrative Court on February 13, 1981. The AMENDED COMPLAINT in July 1981.

Depositions were conducted by Steven Kern, counsel for Dr. Greenwald on October 5th and 6th, 1981. Nine months following the depositions the attorneys general filed a proposed Second Amended Complaint which included nine new allegations of incompetence. Of the nine, five were known to the attorneys general prior to the date the Original Complaint was filed in February 1981. Yet these complaints were rejected and neither appeared in the Original or the Amended Complaint of July 7, 1981. Now in August 1982, these previously rejected complaints arise. The Second Amended Complaint is then Revised in January 1983. The Complaint is now completely changed. The "Key" witness involved in the sex charges, Debra Wallace, now represents a major alteration. The Original and Amended Complaint set forth specific allegations (22 points) whereas the Revised Complaint is vague: "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."

(1 point) The same occurred with the second woman, Jennifer Watson (although the patient had testified to the contrary) "In the course of one treatment in November 1977, defendant intimated to Jennifer Watson, a patient, that he would accept sexual favors for payment for dental services." The third woman, Barbara DeGolyer, who did not appear for deposition, was stricken by Judge Dana Cleaves after she successfully avoided being subpoenaed for deposition on numerous occasions. The revisions of the incompetence charges were necessary because the attorneys general made no effort to verify the complaints with the patients involved or interview Dr. Greenwald, or his staff. Therefore much of what they alleged was incorrect. Two Complaints were stricken by Judge Cleaves: Evans and Thompson. In the only case which did go to trial, that of Elaine Prudhomme, after nine and one half hours of testimony, Judge Cleaves found in favor of Dr. Greenwald. The attorney general, as legal counsel for the Board of Dental Examiners, should have demanded that the Board follow their own rules of procedure in the handling of complaints: "Once a complaint is received by the Board, they must contact the dentist involved and ask for written response. They may then ask the dentist to appear before them with his patient records and answer to the charges. At this time the Board has an opportunity to review his records and make a decision before turning the complaint over to the Attorneys General." This procedure was disregarded in the case of Dr. Greenwald and the complaints were filed in Administrative Court without Dr. Greenwald's knowledge and without giving him the opportunity to dispute or answer the charges.

Added to the charges listed in the Revised Amended Complaint, were charges of incompetent record keeping and unskillful practice. These charges were applied to all complaints going back to the Original Complaint of February 13, 1981; two years prior. The Board of Dental Examiners and the attorneys general had Dr. Greenwald's records for those patients named in the Original Complaint and Amended Complaint before the Amended Complaint was filed July 7, 1981. At that time they did not find him incompetent in the area of record keeping or unskillful practice. The attorneys general also had in their possession, Dr. Greenwald's records of those patients named in the Second Amended Complaint before the Complaint was filed in Administrative Court.

Dr. Greenwald was charged with holding himself out as a specialist in endodontics (root canal therapy). Enclosed is a copy of the last registration card Dr. Greenwald filled out when he re-registered with the Board of Dental Examiners in 1979. (Re-registration was required every 4 years) The card reads: "Specialty OR Limited practice?" Board Eligible: Yes OR No?" Dr. Greenwald indicated "Limited practice" and answered "No" for Board Eligible." The very fact that those questions are asked indicates a general dentist may "Limit his practice." Dr. Bruce Woolett, a general dentist in Portland, "limited" his practice to endodontics for years. Dr. Woolett took in two associates, who, at a later date became board certified or board eligible endodontists. However, Dr. Woolett was never board certified or board eligible but continued to limit his practice. The name of Dr. Woolett's practice is ENDODONTIC ASSOCIATES. He also has branch offices in Augusta, Biddeford and Lewiston, Maine. Some Bangor dentists referred patients to Dr. Woolett, as they had to Dr. Greenwald until he opened Dentalcare. The Board of Dental Examiners had knowledge of Dr. Woollett's practice, but never charged him with "holding himself out as a specialist."

Dr. Greenwald's attorney, Steven Kern, proposed to the attorneys general, as counsel for the Board that the entire matter be sent to an impartial expert witness, selected by both parties, who would review all the complaints and render a decision. The decision rendered, after reviewing all the complaints, would be upheld by both sides. Dr. Greenwald was willing. However, the attorneys general and the Board rejected the proposal. They had their own hired gun, whom they had used in the past with success, Dr. William Dowden, Assistant Professor of Endodontics, University of Connecticut. A man who was also very interested in writing a book with Judge Dana Cleaves, (Discussed in a letter from Dowden to Judge Cleaves. A copy of this letter is in Mrs. Greenwald's possession) about cases in which they were, and are now, involved.

 

The attorneys general brought sanctions against Dr. Greenwald alleging that he did not provide them with patient records which they had requested for evaluation. At that time they had everything in their possession. What they did not have did not exist. Much to do was made about "having all the records" in their possession for use as evidence. However, when the attorney general accused Dr. Greenwald of treating Charlotte Oliver and Dennis Mott in 1984, when his license was suspended, they did not produce in court, as evidence, the records of Oliver or Mott. Dennis Mott, who, with Charlotte Oliver, were both patients of Bangor Dentalcare, were seen by the same hygienist; Kelley Emory. And the same dentist; Robert Kassa. Investigator for the attorney general, Robert McCarthy, showed up at the office one day, unexpectedly, and requested to see the treatment records of those two patients. Mrs. Greenwald complied, and as Investigator McCarthy watched, retrieved them from the patient files and showed them to him. He acknowledged, that Kelley Emory, hygienist, saw Mott and Oliver first, took a panoramic x-ray and cleaned their teeth. Then Dr. Robert Kassa examined them both. Dr. Kassa's signature, verifying that he treated them was on both records. The records were never provided as evidence, neither was Kelley Emory or Dr. Kassa brought in to testify. For some reason, Dennis Mott never appeared, either. But, Charlotte Oliver, when showed one photograph; that of Dr. Greenwald, by Investigator McCarthy, several months later, identified him as the dentist who examined her mouth. That was the State's entire case. One woman. McCarthy was not called as a witness. But there was no doubt he knew without a doubt that Dr. Greenwald never treated those patients. But, he kept his mouth shut. Mrs. Greenwald wrote to the attorney general's office requesting copies of the Oliver and Mott treatment records then in the possession of Dr. Kassa. Assistant Attorney General Mary Jean Crouter wrote to Dr. Kassa, enclosing a copy of Mrs. Greenwald's request. She also wrote: "Enclosed is a copy of my letter to Dr. Robert Kassa. As you will note, I advised Dr. Kassa that, absent an ongoing investigation or enforcement proceeding, this office cannot compel the release of dental records. I regret I am unable to assist you."

 

 

The treatment records of Charlotte Oliver and Dennis Mott remain in the possession of Dr. Robert Kassa. Dr. Kassa took over the practice and office of Dr. Greenwald. All equipment, supplies, furnishings, patient records and personal effects (estimated value $350,000) he has converted to his personal use without any remuneration to Dr. Greenwald. He refuses to release the records of Oliver and Mott because he acquired, at Dr. Greenwald's misfortune, a profitable business, complete inventory with two in-house laboratories completely stocked with supplies, for absolutely nothing. In a letter dated October 30, 1986, Mrs. Greenwald also requested from Assistant Attorney General Crouter, copies of an interview report by investigator, Robert McCarthy of Dr. Marius Templer, an employee of Dr. Greenwald. Mrs. Crouter stated in a letter dated November 25, 1986:

"I understand Detective McCarthy did NOT receive copies of Charlotte Oliver's or Dennis Mott's dental records. With regard to your request for a copy of Detective McCarthy's investigation report of his interview with Dr. Marius Templer, pursuant to 5 M.R.S.A. S200D, such investigative records are confidential and may not be disclosed." Mrs. Greenwald personally made copies of the Oliver and Mott records and personally handed them to Detective McCarthy.

 

 

In the interview conducted by Detective McCarthy of Dr. Marius Templer with regard to the allegations that Dr. Greenwald, while under suspension, treated a patient, Ida Streams, Dr. Templer stated Dr. Greenwald in no way provided treatment to Ida Streams. Dr. Templer stated he was the treating dentist. The attorneys general ignored Dr. Templer's statement and charged Dr. Greenwald with treating this patient.

 

 

The attorneys general realized after the initial set of depositions of October 5th and 6th 1981 that their case had, "gone down the toilet." The words of Greenwald's attorney, Steve Kern. Discovery exposed the ORIGINAL Complaint for the sham that it was and sought to oppress Dr. Greenwald with a new set of unfounded allegations after Dr. Greenwald fought for more than a year and a half under tremendous stress and with great expenditures of money. 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.

 

As a point of interest, fifteen individual patients were involved in the complaints. The dentists instrumental in forwarding those complaints to the Board of Dental Examiners or the attorneys general, were: Drs. William Deighan, Charles Ramsberger, Shaun Dowd, Henry Woodbrey, David Talley and Jeffrey Fister. Six local dentists. With exception of Dr. Bailey, who's complaint was dismissed, (he was never deposed but did make slanderous and libelous remarks to patients about Dr. Greenwald) all the other dentists perjured themselves on numerous occasions and openly slandered and libeled Dr. Greenwald to patients in their offices. There were 77 dentists in the immediate Bangor area, why were there not complaints from the other 70 dentists?

 

Dr. Greenwald and his associates saw approximately 7500 patients a year after he opened Dentalcare in 1980. Between 1972 and 1979, while limiting his practice to endodontics he treated approximately 500 patients each year. Dr. Greenwald saw more than 500 patients a year for root canal therapy between 1980 and 1982. A total of 5000 completed root canal treatments. The American Dental Association statistics on successful root canal therapy is 90%. The Board charged Dr. Greenwald with SIX counts of incompetence related to root canal therapy. Remember, two of the complaints; More and Butterfield were never treated by Dr. Greenwald. Therefore, even IF the State was correct, and the failure of these root canals was Dr. Greenwald's fault, his success rate far exceeds the 90% rate claimed by the American Dental Association.

 

In August 1983, one week before the scheduled first trial, the attorneys general, prompted by the Board of Dental Examiners, approached Dr. Greenwald through, Julio DeSanctis, who was now acting as Dr. Greenwald's attorney, (and he was literally acting, because he knew nothing of the case which had gone on for so long), t~ settle the case out of court. Steven Kern, the attorney who had been involved for the duration, and knew all the complaints inside out, had backed off representing Dr. Greenwald because Dr. Greenwald owed him a considerable amount of money. Dr. Greenwald didn't blame Kern, after all, he was looking ahead at two trials, (Judge Cleaves had bifurcated the trials) one part in August and the other in October.

At an approximate total cost of 50,000; more depositions were required, expert witnesses would definitely be required, documents, transcripts, motions. Etc, etc, etc. And, at this point Dr. Greenwald couldn't keep up with expenses. He was selling whatever personal possessions he could to raise money. The bank would soon foreclose on his home. Things were closing in. He thought he could win but, but he didn't have the money. So, the offer extended to acting attorney, Julio DeSantis, who constantly reminded him of the position he was in, by the attorney general, acting on behalf of the Board of Dental Examiners, was worth a listen, not much more, but a listen.

 

After eight grueling hours, in the offices of the attorney generals in Augusta, with Julio, pleading with them to accept their terms, in the form of a Consent Decree, Dr. and Mrs. Greenwald said, "NO! thank you," and walked out. Dr. Greenwald never expected The Board to be honorable, after dealing with them for so long. They would still surprise him with their vindictiveness.

 

To those who knew Dr. Greenwald, were trusted and had read it, the Consent Decree appeared to be an admission by the State that they had no case. Maureen Williams, a reporter for the Bangor Daily News, who had covered the story since it first began, felt the State had conceded. "They have no case. That's why they're willing to settle out of court. If they had a case they could win they wouldn't be so eager to settle." Other close friends felt the same way. It wasn't hard for Dr. Greenwald, his wife and his family, to hope, that perhaps this could be behind them and they could get on with their lives. After all, the attorneys general, and the Board had promised Dr. Greenwald could still run his business, Dentalcare, could still operate, as long as the employees cooperated and signed affidavits every six months stating he had not been involved in "any way in the practice of dentistry." Their perception of the involvement far exceeded what any axillary or administrative employee could do. He was extremely limited in what he was allowed to do or say. The decree was more restrictive than anything in the by-laws of the Board's requirements. He couldn't do what his office manager did, he couldn't speak to his employees about taking care of HIS equipment, HIS supplies, he couldn't ask them how patients were, he couldn't insist they call patients after treatment to make sure they were okay, he couldn't do anything, anything any other employee in his office could do, without a license. His employees ran the office. When the time to sign the affidavits came around, they weren't sure whether to sign or not. Had he practiced within the terms of the consent decree or not?

 

Dr. Kassa and Dr. Snyder were both interested in "buying the lucrative practice." However, neither of them wanted to use money. Both dentists were now reluctant to sign the final affidavit. The hygienist, concerned that the dentists were reluctant to sign, also refused. This put Dr. Greenwald at their mercy. Finally, the state closed in with allegations that Dr. Greenwald had treated patients.

Both claims were disputed by either a doctor, who saw the patient, or by written patients records which proved Dr. Greenwald did not treat the patients. (Given to Detective McCarthy of the attorney general's office upon spontaneous request when he made a surprise visit to the office and watched as the records were retrieved by Mrs. Greenwald). The State won! They dismissed the testimony of the doctor who treated the patient, and they refused to believe the actual treatment records of the treating dentists. Dr. Kassa offered to buy the practice with no money down and seven years to pay. Just a piece of paper. He saw the patients Dr. Greenwald allegedly saw, however, it was in his interest to remain silent. Witnesses to this event were never called and the records were never presented at trial including the testimony of the hygienist who cleaned their teeth and took x-rays before Dr. Kassa examined them.

 

The Consent Decree Dr. Greenwald signed on August 26, 1983, effective October 1, 1983, drastically limited Dr. Greenwald to engage in a number of activities related to his dental practice, and in fact, limited him from engaging in certain acts which did not constitute the practice of dentistry under Maine Law. The prosecuting attorney in the Maine revocation hearing specifically stated the "the consent decree was actually more restrictive than the Maine Statute is as to what is the practice of dentistry." The stipulated penalty of the Decree provided for self executing penalties for violations, making clear that Dr. Greenwald need not have engaged in any professional misconduct (as viewed by New York) to trigger Maine's disciplinary action. At a hearing on July 15, 1987 in New York, Dr. Greenwald attempted to explore the circumstances of the Maine proceeding, over the continued attempt by the New York prosecuting attorney to prevent the Regents Committee from understanding the underlying basis for the charges before the Committee.

The New York Board of Regents could not point to any acts of improper or unprofessional activity in the State of New York attributed to Dr. Greenwald, nor was there any valid contention that Dr. Greenwald presents a threat of harm to the public. At the July 15, 1987 hearing, the prosecuting attorney inexcusably and prejudicially informed the Committee, "It appears to me that Dr. Greenwald represents a severe danger to the public." Yet in spite of the "severe danger" posed by Dr. Greenwald, the Board of Regents presented no charges of malpractice, nor did the Notice of Hearing or Statement of Charges provide Dr. Greenwald with any indication that the Committee would be presented with such "evidence" of threat to the public. The communication between the prosecuting attorney, the Maine Board of Dental Examiners and the Maine attorney general lead to the blatant efforts of the prosecuting attorney to prevent Dr. Greenwald from presenting his defense while simultaneously injecting false and improper statements into the record. His effort to inject his opinion unsupported by evidence and unrelated to the charges, were extremely prejudicial to Dr. Greenwald. The prejudice of the Maine Board and the Maine attorney general were transmitted to the New York prosecuting attorney.

 

When Dr. Greenwald signed a consent decree with the State of Maine and was given a two year suspension of his license in Maine. New York followed suit in April 1986 by finding him guilty of having admitted to those charges contained in the Maine Consent Decree. He received a two year suspension, which was stayed. At that time Dr. Greenwald's only license to practice dentistry was that issued by New York State. Having now been twice disciplined by New York, Dr. Greenwald was again served with a notice of Hearing for disciplinary action dated February 9, 1987. Dr. Greenwald again appeared pro-se, informing the Committee that he was unable to afford an attorney. The result was the revocation of his license. Dr. Greenwald was alleged to have been found guilty of improper professional practice or professional misconduct by a duly authorized disciplinary agency of another state, which, through the provision of Section 6509 (5) (b) of the Education Law allegedly constituted such conduct within New York.

 

NOTE: Justice Dana Cleaves, of the Administrative Court, had presided over Dr. Greenwald's license revocation case in Maine from the onset,

February 1981. However, it was Justice Rogers who presided at the trial in February 1986 and Justice Rogers who revoked his license based on violations of the consent decree. Justice Cleaves recused himself from the proceedings immediately before trial.

 

When the Maine Board of Dental Examiners, with the full cooperation of the Maine attorneys general, revoked the license of Dr. Greenwald, not only was it a terrible injustice to Dr. Greenwald, but it was an injustice to the people of Maine. Dr. Greenwald's office, Dentalcare, provided an important service in northern Maine. This was shown through the unbelievable support of Dr. Greenwald's patients during the media blitz of accusations, and slanderous remarks of local dentists involved in his destruction and that of Dentalcare. From January 1980 through 1985, Dentalcare thrived because it provided quality dentistry, convenient hours and low fees. Not the traditional way of doing business. Not the way the traditional dentists liked it, but Dentalcare was not created for dentists; traditional or otherwise. It was created for the benefit of the public, As proven by its success. The attorney general, legislated protector of the general public, destroyed it! The free enterprise system cannot survive when the attorney general serves the vested interests of a vocal minute majority who want to keep the vast silent majority poor, ignorant and in inferior dental health. The attorney general imposed a terrible disservice to the people of Maine in the name of Justice.

 

Dr. Greenwald and his family left the State of Maine in late August 1985 to settle in Massachusetts. In September of that same year, the attorneys general, without permission or authorization, confiscated all of Dr. Greenwald's business records from his office in Bangor. The four cartons of material they removed were taken to the office of the attorney general in Augusta for close examination. (Obviously they were on a fishing trip looking for whatever they could use against him). They found nothing. When Dr. Greenwald learned of this he requested his business records returned. In October 1985, Dr. Greenwald's sister in-law, Elizabeth Munroe, picked up the cartons in Augusta and delivered them to Massachusetts.

 

Epilogue:

The Greenwald family lost their home to bank foreclosure, lost numerous personal possessions, sold off to pay lawyers. They lost their business, a very successful business. Dr. Greenwald lost his license, his self respect and much of his confidence. The Greenwalds with their two young sons then moved to Massachusetts where Dr. Greenwald had no license to practice dentistry. He found a job managing three dental offices for Dr. Leonard Grover. After a year he was recommended by the local dental supply salesman for a better position managing five offices for Drs. James Bresnick and Howard Seplowitz. (Mrs Greenwald was also employed as a receptionist.) Dr. Greenwald did this successfully until the banks closed in on Bresnick and Seplowitz and took the equipment for nonpayment of bank loans. Dr. and Mrs. Greenwald both lost their jobs on the same day. Dr. Greenwald then returned to New York State, where he still had a license and returned to the practice of dentistry. Mrs. Greenwald remained in Massachusetts with their two sons. In Albany, he met a Dr. Mike Kole who, with Dr. Greenwald's assistance, bought a practice which Dr. Greenwald operated and in which he doubled the gross in less than a year. The family reunited, rented a small house and tried to re-build their lives together. Mrs. Greenwald again worked side by side with her husband. This he did until May 1988 when New York State, to "mirror the actions of our sister State (Maine)" revoked his license and then denied his appeal for reinstatement. Dr Greenwald took odd jobs such as waiter in Albany, process server in Schenectady, auto sales at Otto Cadillac, Oldsmobile Isuzu and writing magazine articles for Schenectady magazine. The family moved again, renting a smaller less expensive house just outside Albany. Mrs. Greenwald was working for a dentist and paying most of the expenses. Dr. Greenwald could not find a decent paying job, even for minimal pay. He changed his resume' several times, deleting part of his education and his three degrees. By now his self esteem had hit bottom. Tensions were high and the family was all under stress. In December 1988 he finally decided the hell with it and returned to practice what he did best; dentistry. Licensed or not! He returned to New York City, where he could get lost in the madding crowd and did only root canal therapy unimpeded until 1991 when, in an office he was working in, in Brooklyn, he was caught practicing sans license. A five year probation period was invoked. And then we come to Monroe NY 

April 2, 1998    Dr. Greenwald worked for Monroe Dental for 6 years. On April 2, 1998 he was caught practicing without a license, charged with three felonies, and now faces incarceration.

 

Every American citizen has a right to work, if he can find a job. Dr. Greenwald has a job, and can work; however, his right to work was taken from him unlawfully, first by the State of Maine, then by the State of New York. Now he has no rights and he cannot afford justice.

Back top top