This is a public update of 2 Cases which I legally represent, that are now under Official Review by the Canada's Ontario Health Professions Appeal Review Board

1. CONDEMNATION of the ROYAL COLLEGE of DENTAL SURGEONS of ONTARIO
Legal Case Agent: Michael Pastien [May 11th
2017]
I Demand an Ethical Review of Cases C150616T & C150575T for Overdue Justice
The RCDSO proclaims itself as the “unbiased” regulatory body which handles complaints for patients in Ontario
(Maybe it sometimes manages this, depending on the caliber of Investigator and Panel assigned to Complaints)
While their website’s narrative of the processes they vow to take in seriously dealing with complaints is academically
notable…the Cases that I painstakingly forensically investigated and expertly structured were overall handled by the
RCDSO in a GROSSLY NEGLIGENT Prolonged Fashion COMRADELY SHAM!
* RCDSO Investigator utterly refused my equitable Dec 16th
2016 plea that she email me helpful Digital Copies of all
Files and X-Rays linked to Dec 6th
’16 decisions of both Cases…because “she” deems “Matters are now at an end”
FACT – Dental Malpractice by RCDSO Licensed Practitioners is surely a PUBLIC ETHICAL EMBARRASSMENT
to them on Social Media, Google and Web Searches…plus Potentially Legally Binding!
RCDSO “LOST” my Initial Nov 8th 2015 “Dr F Gross Dental Malpractice” Case Lodging
*They Never Offered an Explanation or Apology for the “Missing” initial Filing of the Case
* Upon my Re-Lodging of the Case vs Dr F on Dec 6th
2015 the RCDSO ‘Investigator’ phoned, and UNETHICALLY
Asked TWICE if I still wished to proceed with the Complaints! [The call was “likely” recorded for legal purposes]
RCDSO then Grossly Negligently Extended the Case by Over 1 Year (So Far)
* RCDSO clearly should have insisted on revising its Panel’s Decisions before they were “partially finalized”
RCDSO Panel Decisions were 9 months late and Not Ethically Sent by Registered Mail
* Confidential time sensitive legal communications, chiefly any requiring a response by the recipient within very tight deadlines; should be
Expedited by Registered Mail and/or better yet, email…Otherwise, there is no proof they were sent at all.
* Where was the RCDSO Oversight Committee or Ethics Auditor during its enigmatic lengthy process in dealing with
GROSS DENTAL MALPRACTICE CHARGES?
RCDSO Panel Falsified Evidence
The Panel validates “100% fabricated evidence” of a Dr F fictional April 22 2010 Chart Entry that refers to
“Periapical Pathology Present on the Palatal Root of Tooth 16” [there is no such entry in my copies of the charts]
The Panel fraudulently assumes that “When tooth 16 was accessed (by Dr M) it was clearly necrotic”
*The Panel actually agreed with what the Endodontist claims he saw as he drilled into the tooth…like viewing it with their own eyes
RCDSO ignored vital complaints I presented
RCDSO Panel offered many petty “snow job” remarks that are 100% irrelevant to both cases and list discriminating
assumptive circumstantial “opinions” favoring Dr F while 100% IGNORING my “alleged” evidence of the
Outrageous Lies & Contradictions Dr F voiced regarding Tooth #46 at the March 13 ’08 and Sept 30 ’09 Visits
* BTW – Dental Records (that patients rarely ask for) are only statements of what Dentists claim they diagnosed, and
their version of what they told a patient and are not at all essentially true…plus in ‘theory’ are barely more admissible
legally, than what a Patient may claim a Dentist verbally told them at any given time! *In reality…unethical openings
exist for Dentists to liberally add Chart Progress & Treatment Plan Notes up to the time of a Patient’s next Visit.
Dr F and the Panel 100% ignored my Allegation of Evident Radiolucency between the Roots of Tooth #47
(In the 2008 Panoramic X-Ray). After I asked on Dec 6th
2015, if Dr F had missed diagnosing cavities…in any of the
overall X-Rays, he responded with: “No…I don’t think so” [*PS – #47 Periapical should have been necessary]
* MOST of Dr F’s BITEWING X-RAYS are in FACT so BADLY UNBALANCED that some are nearly inadvertent
Periapicals of Upper Quadrants…plus both RQ 2008 & 2010 BWs are near clones; and unethically omit exposing half
the end teeth. There is also a 100% needless PERIAPICAL of 2 FRONT TEETH (as stated in my initial complaint).

2. “Dr F” / “Dr M” Tooth #15/16/17 Endo Case Concise Forensic Overview
Dr M’s appointment (according to his own records) instantly began with URQ freezing before “Consultation”. Once
freezing was injected (after which a Patient cannot respond to feeling in the area), he then examined the URQ (noting
Tooth 15 had no response to cold); then “Prescribed” Endo Treatment Only for #16.
Dr F’s endo booking with Dr M includes no details whatsoever as to what circumstances led to the appointment being
booked other than providing a feeble caliber digital X-Ray that only identifies Tooth #15 as the concern.
Dr M never contacted Dr F for firsthand details on the #15 Booking and even though the imagery value of deeply
restored Tooth #17 is faint he autonomously opted to not take a new X-Ray with his clearly superior equipment
plus cavalierly proceeded with a costly #16 Quad Endo, even though the entire URQ is asymptomatic!
* The fact that no record exists of Dr F or his Office ever contacting Dr M to clear up a potential #15/16/17 booking
conflict ahead of Endo; evidently points to Dr F not having crossed out #15 in the Progress Notes, or added any April
22 ’10 Booking Specifics in the Treatment Chart that are Not Ethically Co-Initialed as Required …until after Dr M
autonomously opted to perform Endo on #16 (without specifically diagnosing any abscess at that tooth or anywhere).
* I didn’t know Dr M did endo at a different tooth than Dr F booked the visit for, until seeing the dental records in ’15
* The evidence is solid that the appointment booked with Dr F is due to Tooth #15 sensitivity and no tooth other than
#15 is precisely identified as being an issue (no sensitivity at #16) in the Progress Notes during the actual examination
PS – Dr F did not diagnose ‘Obvious’ Apex Radiolucency in the 2008 URQ Periapical at that time, nor hasn’t since;
even though ‘Alleged’ Radiolucency in the 2010 vs 2008 URQ Periapicals is ‘Evidently’ Virtually Identical thus
it is IMPOSSIBLE for Dr F to have truly diagnosed any abscess in the 2010 URQ Periapical as now claimed.
Tooth #46 Timeline Facts
* Two foremost Ottawa Dental Practitioners were independently consulted, without informing either of them that I lodged RCDSO
Complaints…and both refute Dr F and the RCDSO Panel’s “Treatment Plan” for Tooth #46
1980s –Root Canal improperly performed at Tooth #46 by Dr DMV (Edmonton)
2000 – Dr JC Installs a Crown above Notable #46 Radiolucency (Edmonton)
2000 – Alberta Dental Association “Complaints Mediation Chair” conveys Notable #46 Radiolucency “Concern”
yet Recommends No Course of Action Whatsoever
2008-2010 – Dr F deceitfully markets an $8K small implant (obviously exposing a ‘motivational’ ugly 44-46 gap, for
a removal of the “Too Big Unnatural” Crown)…Targeted on Scoring a 2nd
implant Gross Malpractice Total!
2016 – Top-Rated Ottawa Dentist opines at an in-person oral exam, that since the #46 radiolucency seems dormant,
based on a comparison of his new HD Panoramic X-Ray taken with modern hi-tech equipment vs Dr F’s 2008 X-Ray;
plus asymptomatic, according to my personal feedback…there is No Urgency To Treat The Area Whatsoever
2016 – Top Ottawa Dental Specialist matter-of-factly pronounces upon viewing the 2016 HD X-Ray that Tooth #46
Radiolucency exists, because Dr DMV’s root canal had not gone deep enough……..and while it “may be dormant”
Its Cleanup Can Be Done For a Mere $1.2K…Without Removing The Crown
Dec 6th
2016 – RCDSO ‘boldly’ claims that replacing the “hopeless” crown was needed in ’08 plus suggestively hints
that “there appears to be” a fracture under the 46 crown, in the ’08-10 X-Rays (that Dr F has never even mentioned).
*PS As stated in my initial complaints…Dr F’s Panoramic X-Ray is not so diagnostic after all…and seems to prove
Lower Quadrant Periapicals and Better Bitewings should have been taken
* The overall evidence suggests that from 2008-10 Dr F should at best have promoted a ‘no crown removal’
Tooth #46 Root Canal…that most 1st year Dentistry Students are likely aware of.