|
download
printable version of this document
SHAWN KHORRAMI, ESQ., SBN 180411
MATTHEW A. BREDDAN, ESQ., SBN 174133
LAW OFFICES OF SHAWN KHORRAMI
14550 Haynes Street, Third Floor
Van Nuys, CA 91411
CHARLES G. BROWN, ESQ., pro hac vice
SWANKIN & TURNER
1400 Sixteenth Street N.W.
Suite 330
Washington, DC 20036
Attorneys for Plaintiffs,
KIDS AGAINST POLLUTION, DENTAL AMALGAM MERCURY
SYNDROME, INC., AMERICAN ACADEMY OF BIOLOGICAL DENTISTRY and
DEBRA SELTENREICH
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
CITY AND COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
|
KIDS AGAINST POLLUTION, a nonprofit organization; DENTAL AMALGAM
MERCURY SYNDROME, INC., a nonprofit organization; AMERICAN ACADEMY
OF BIOLOGICAL DENTISTRY, a nonprofit organization; DEBRA SELTENREICH,
an individual; on behalf of themselves, all those similarly situated
and in the interest of the general public
Plaintiffs
v.
AMERICAN DENTAL ASSOCIATION, a corporation; CALIFORNIA DENTAL
ASSOCIATION, a corporation; and DOES 1 THROUGH 2000, inclusive,
Defendants.
______________________________________
|
|
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
))))
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
|
|
Case No.
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND RESTITUTION BASED ON:
1. Violation of Business & Professions Code ßß17200
et seq. based on Health & Safety Code ßß25249.6
et seq.;
2. Violation of Business & Professions Code ßß
17200 et seq. based on Business & Professions Code
ß510;
3. Violation of Business & Professions Code ßß17200
et seq. based on Business & Professions Code ß2056;
4. Violation of Business & Professions Code ßß
17200 et seq. based on Unfair and Deceptive Business Practices;
5. Violation of Business & Professions Code ßß
17200 et seq. based on Deceptive Business Practices
|
INTRODUCTION
- This is a case about two healthcare associations
which have undertaken a course of conduct and a business practice
spanning over many decades in order to assure that patients do
not receive accurate information regarding mercury amalgam
fillings. Specifically, the American Dental Association ("ADA")
and the California Dental Association ("CDA") have,
for years, sent out literature, informational materials, advertisements,
and other written correspondence, and also made oral representations,
all of which were deliberately intended to disguise mercury
amalgam fillings as silver. The ADA and CDA have concealed
and provided false information to their members and the general
public regarding the significant risk of harm and toxic injury
from such fillings to consumers, and dental practitioners. Furthermore,
the ADA and CDA have undertaken business practices in order to
assure that consumers, particularly patients and high risk populations
such as pregnant women and children remain oblivious to the significant
levels of mercury in and toxicity of dental amalgam fillings.
- This deception takes the form of concealment,
openly false representations, and an outward aggression toward
those who do not agree with the Defendants. It is layer upon
layer of actions by the Defendants from their pamphlets and other
written and oral materials, to accreditation of dental schools,
to revocation of licenses of those dentists who oppose the Defendantsí
position.
- The ADA has a significant income from the
sale of its written materials, including, but not limited to
pamphlets and brochures. These materials convey false and misleading
information to dental professionals and the public, and combined
with the Defendants continuous efforts to "gag" any
opposition, assure that the "m" word (mercury) remains
a secret.
- When considering the significance of these
Defendantsí actions, it is important to consider the following:
- These organizations, and particularly the
ADA, hold themselves out as the foremost, and perhaps only, authorities
on oral care in this country and the world.
- These organizations, and particularly the
ADA, have actively prevented dentists from receiving accurate
information about mercury amalgam;
- Even where dentists have been aware of the
serious toxicity issues relating to mercury amalgam, these organizations,
and particularly the ADA, have actively prevented dentists from
relaying this toxicity information to their patients;
- Mercury is
one of, if not the, most toxic non-radioactive element
known to man. There is an overwhelming amount of scientific data
ranging from animal to human studies conclusively documenting
mercuryís horrendous and devastating effects. Unlike some
other toxic materials, Mercury is dangerous in all of its formulations.
In fact, the State of California (along with various other authoritative
governmental and scientific bodies) recognizes mercury, methylmercury,
and all of their compounds as highly toxic to the human body.
When it comes to mercury, the question is not whether
it is toxic, but just how toxic it is.
- Over the years, Governmental and scientific
bodies, continuously, have lowered the levels at which mercury
is considered toxic. Additionally, in virtually every other application,
particularly in the healthcare industry, the use of mercury has
either been banned or phased out. For example, the use of mercury
thermometers has been phased out; mercurochrome, previously used
to treat cuts, has been banned; the use of mercury preservatives
in vaccines, and eye drops is being phased out. Outside of the
healthcare industry, the manufacturers of fluorescent lamps,
which lamps traditionally contained up to 25 milligrams of mercury,
have, year after year, lowered the amount of mercury in their
products in a continuing effort to phase out the use of mercury.
- As a point of reference, while the fluorescent
lamp manufacturers have been and are currently under fire for
less than 25 milligrams of mercury in their product, a typical
mercury amalgam filling contains 750 milligrams
of mercury (over 30 times more than a fluorescent lamp),
and an individual can have 5 to 15 fillings in her mouth.
- Additionally, mercury is a toxic substance
when being delivered to the dental office, and the fillings are
toxic waste when leaving the dental office. Yet, Defendants claim
that the fillings are perfectly safe when placed inside an individualís
mouth. Simply put, the Defendants concede that mercury
is toxic in every instance; just not in an individualís
mouth.
- Although this contention is facially laughable,
its effects on the public (and many dentistsí careers)
have been anything but funny. The dental industry, including
the Defendants herein, stands alone as the only industry which
openly, outwardly, and falsely claims that mercury is
safe and that its use should be continued.
- It is most noteworthy that this is not about
an association advocating the use of a particular product; this
is about an association which actively, and aggressively lashes
out against those who oppose its views. This is about an association
that derives a significant income from advocating for the use
of this highly toxic substance. This is about an association
that is generally known as the number one, and perhaps, only
authority in oral care, advocating, telling, and teaching
its members and the public that the most toxic element known
to man is actually safe when placed in millions of peopleís
mouths.
- As set forth herein, the Defendants, through
their so-called "ethical rules," have openly prevented
dentists from properly informing their patients of the toxicity
of this product. These so-called "ethical rules" have
been, and continue to be, enforced by various dental boards in
order to revoke the licenses of dentists who speak against the
use of mercury amalgams. The Defendants, through their
literature, particularly their brochure which is going to be
the subject of a request for a preliminary injunction herein,
have provided false information to their members and the general
public regarding the dangers of this product, or even the fact
that mercury is an ingredient. In fact, Defendants refer
to mercury amalgam fillings as silver. Through
their accreditation program, Defendants, and particularly the
ADA, have caused dental schools to provide trainees with false
information regarding mercury amalgams.
- The Defendants, and each of them, have steadfastly
refused to inform the public, in general, and the Plaintiffs,
specifically, regarding the potential toxic effects of mercury
amalgams, or even the fact that mercury is present in amalgams.
These acts violate various statutes and prevent the administration
of appropriate healthcare in the dental industry as set forth
herein.
JURISDICTION
- The California Superior Court has jurisdiction
over this action pursuant to California Constitution Article
VI, Section 10, which grants the Superior Court "original
jurisdiction in all causes except those given by statute to other
trial courts." The Statutes under which this action is brought
do not specify any other basis for jurisdiction.
- The California Superior Court has jurisdiction
over all Defendants because, based on information and belief,
each is a corporation and/or entity and/or person that has sufficient
minimum contacts in California, is a citizen of California, or
otherwise intentionally avails itself of the California market
so as to render the exercise of jurisdiction over it by the California
courts consistent with traditional notions of fair play and substantial
justice.
- Venue is proper in the Los Angeles Superior
Court because both of the named Defendants exist, transact business,
and/or have offices in Los Angeles.
THE PARTIES
- Kids Against Pollution ("KAP")
is a nonprofit organization of active youth throughout the United
States, with offices in Utica, New York.
- Dental Amalgam Mercury Syndrome, Inc. ("DAMS")
is a nonprofit organization with its national offices located
in Minneapolis, Minnesota. DAMSí membership includes individuals
throughout the nation and California who have been injured by
dental amalgam.
- The American Academy of Biological Dentistry
("AABD") is a nonprofit organization headquartered
in Carmel Valley, California. AABD and its members advocate mercury-free
dentistry.
- Debra Seltenreich is an individual residing
in the State of California. Ms. Seltenreich spent some 20 years
working as a dental assistant, never being informed of the dangers
of mercury or even its significant presence in dental amalgam
fillings.
- At all times relevant herein, the California
Dental Association is and was a nonprofit corporation headquartered
in California, and doing business throughout this State. The
Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based thereon allege
that the CDAís members comprise some 75% of the dentists
in California.
- At all times relevant herein, Defendant CDA
transacted business in the State of California, County of Los
Angeles.
- At all times relevant herein, the American
Dental Association is and was a nonprofit corporation headquartered
in Illinois. All members of the CDA are required to be members
of the ADA. As such, Plaintiffs are informed and believe and
based thereon allege that approximately 75% of the dentists in
California are ADA members, and transact business with the ADA.
Furthermore, among other things, the ADA accredits dental schools
within California.
- At all times relevant herein, Defendant ADA
transacted business in the State of California, County of Los
Angeles.
- The true names and capacities, whether individual,
corporate, associate, or otherwise, of Defendants named herein
as DOES 1 through 100, and each of them, are unknown to Plaintiffs,
who therefore, sue said Defendants by such fictitious names.
- Plaintiffs will ask leave to amend this Complaint
to state said Defendantsí true identities and capacities
when the same have been ascertained.
- Plaintiffs is informed and believe and based
thereupon allege that each of the defendants designated herein
as DOE took part in and participated with the Defendants in all
matters referred to herein and was in some manner responsible
for the injuries and losses suffered by Plaintiffs.
- Plaintiffs is informed and believe and based
thereupon allege that at all times herein mentioned each of the
Defendants was the agent, servant and/or employee or occupied
other relationships with each of the other named Defendants and
at all times herein mentioned acted within the course and scope
of said agency and/or employment and/or other relationship and
each other Defendant has ratified, consented to, and approved
the acts of his agents, employees, and representatives, and that
each actively participated in, aided and abetted, or assisted
one another in the commission of the wrongdoing alleged in this
Complaint.
STATUTORY BACKGROUND
A. UNFAIR COMPETITION ACT (BUS. &
PROF. CODE ß 17200 ET SEQ.)
- California Business & Professions Code
ß17200 provides that "unfair competition shall mean
and include unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice."
Section 17203 of the Business & Professions Code provides
that "(a)ny person performing or proposing to perform an
act of unfair competition within this state may be enjoined in
any court of competent jurisdiction."
- "An unlawful business activity includes
anything that can properly be called a business practice and
that at the same time is forbidden by law." "Unlawful"
practices prohibited are any practices forbidden by law be it
civil or criminal, federal, state, or municipal, statutory, regulatory,
or court-made. It is not necessary that the predicate law provide
for private civil enforcement. Section 17200 borrows violations
of other laws and treats them as unlawful practices independently
actionable. Section 17200 is designed to protect consumers
against fraud and deceit as well as to protect competitors. It
is broadly interpreted to bar all ongoing wrongful business activities
in any context in which they appear.
- The Unfair Competition Act authorizes injunctive
relief to prevent unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business acts
or practices, and restitution (disgorgement) of money or property
wrongfully obtained by means of such unfair competition. Bus.
& Prof. Code, ß 17203. The statute imposes strict liability.
It is not necessary to show that the defendant intended to injure
anyone. Because the definition contained in Section 17200, is
disjunctive, a "business act or practice" is prohibited
if it is "unfair" or "unlawful" or "fraudulent."
In other words, a practice is prohibited as "unfair"
or "deceptive" even if not "unlawful" and
vice versa.
- The "fraud" contemplated by the
third prong of Section 17200, bears little resemblance to common
law fraud or deception. The test is whether the public is likely
to be deceived. This means that, unlike common law fraud or deceit,
a violation occurs even if no one was actually deceived, relied
upon the fraudulent practice, or sustained any damage.
- An "unfair" business practice occurs
when that practice offends an established public policy or when
the practice is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous,
or substantially injurious to consumers. In fact, even
if a practice is neither in violation of antitrust laws nor deceptive,
it may nonetheless be unfair. An act is unfair, without necessarily
having been previously considered unlawful, if it offends public
policy - that is, if "it is within at least the penumbra
of some common-law, statutory, or other established concept of
unfairness."
- Furthermore, a plaintiff suing under section
17200 does not have to prove he or she was directly harmed by
the defendant's business practices. An action may be brought
by any person, corporation or association or by any person acting
for the interests of itself, its members or the general public.
- California Business & Professions Code
ß17206(a) provides that any person violating Section 17200
"shall be liable for civil penalty not to exceed two thousand
five hundred dollars ($2,500) for each violation, which shall
be assessed and recovered in a civil action brought in the name
of the people of the State of California." Under Section
17205, all remedies and penalties are "cumulative to each
other and to the remedies or penalties available under all other
laws of this state."
B. PROPOSITION 65
- Proposition 65, a state ballot measure that
passed by an overwhelming 2 to 1 margin, is codification of a
long-standing public policy within this state which is growing
ever stronger with the passage of time. Within the Preamble to
Proposition 65, the People declared, in no uncertain terms, that
exposures to reproductive toxins and carcinogens "pose a
serious potential threat" to the public health. Section
1 of Initiative Measure, Proposition 65, Nov. 4, 1986. The People
further declared their right "[t]o be informed about exposures
to chemicals that cause cancer, birth defects, or other reproductive
harm." Proposition 65, ß1(b). Consequently, workers
and consumers throughout California mandated that manufacturers
provide clear warning of the severe hazards of exposure to the
chemicals that are known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive
harm. A primary focus of the modern environmental movement has
been the harmful effects of toxics. Simply put, the People want
to eliminate exposures to these deadly chemicals, but where such
exposures are necessary, want to be informed of same, and be
told of the effects which may result.
- Furthermore, through Proposition 65, the
People expressed their distrust of government by allowing for
private enforcement of the law, along with other guidelines seeking
to protect the Citizens of this State despite the political pressures
which may be placed on regulators by industry.
- In relevant part, the Act provides that:
No person in the course of doing business
shall knowingly discharge or release a chemical known to the
state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity into water or
onto or into land where such chemical passes or probably will
pass into any source of drinking water . . . (Health & Safety
Code ß25249.5)
No person in the course of doing business
shall knowingly and intentionally expose any individual to a
chemical known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity
without first giving clear and reasonable warning to such individual,
except as provided in Section 25249.10. (Health & Safety
Code ß25249.6)
- Proposition 65 establishes a procedure by
which the state develops a list of chemicals "known to the
State to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity." Health
& Safety Code ß25249.8. The California Office of Environmental
Hazard Assessment ("OEHHA") is the lead agency charged
with administration of Proposition 65, which, among other things,
includes listing chemicals, de-listing chemicals, and setting
No Significant Risk Levels ("NSRLs") and No Observable
Effect Levels ("NOEL"). Proposition 65 provides clear
mechanisms whereby any individual can request that a specific
chemical be listed or de-listed as a carcinogen and/or reproductive
toxin, request a change in the NSRL or NOEL (22 CCR ß12705(b)),
obtain a safe use determination (22 CCR ß12104), or obtain
an "interpretive guideline" regarding any matter under
the Act (22 CCR ß 12103).
- Pursuant to the mandates of Proposition 65,
on July 1, 1987, OEHHA designated Methylmercury as a chemical
known to the State of California to be a reproductive and/or
developmental toxin. On July 1, 1990, OEHHA determined that Mercury
and Mercury Compounds are known to the State of California to
be reproductive and/or developmental toxins. Subsequently, on
May 1, 1996, OEHHA determined that Methylmercury compounds are
known to the State of California to be carcinogens since May
1, 1996. CCR ß22-12000.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON MERCURY
- Mercury is one of the few chemicals that
is conclusively known to cause adverse health effects
in humans. This is because the effects of Mercury on humans have
been widely studied, in a variety of circumstances and populations.
Mercury is dangerous if inhaled, if absorbed through the skin,
or if it enters through any part of the body. It is a highly toxic element and the most
volatile of the heavy metals.
- Various Federal governmental agencies, and
numerous States, including California, regard Mercury as a powerful
carcinogen, and a reproductive and developmental toxin. Mercury
is also poisonous to the human nervous system. Due to its significant
documented reproductive and developmental effects, pregnant women
and their developing fetuses, women of child-bearing age, and
children under the age of 8 are most at risk for mercury-related
health impacts. These
health impacts include, for example, subtle effects arising from
prenatal exposure such as delayed development and cognitive changes
in children.
- Mercury can cause a variety of symptoms including
chronic inflammation of mouth and gums, personality change, nervousness,
fever, or rash. Neurotoxicity symptoms associated with
Mercury and Mercury Compounds include, but are not limited to,
impaired vision, speech, hearing, and walking; sensory disturbances;
incoordination of movements; nervous system damage very similar
to congenital cerebral palsy; mental disturbances; psychomotor
retardation; and, in some cases death. Mercury has also been
linked to brain neuron degeneration. According to the United States Public Health Service,
mercury poses the most direct danger to the brain and the kidneys. It impairs fetal development, preventing the brain
and nervous system from developing normally. Children poisoned
by mercury show lowered intelligence, impaired hearing and poor
coordination and their verbal and motor skills may be delayed
or otherwise, severely and permanently impaired.
- Knowledge of Mercuryís
adverse health effects is nothing new. Human studies alone date
back more than 60 years. Studies have correlated various ailments,
symptoms, and effects with Mercury for decades. For example in
the 1940's, Mercury was found to be the cause of Acrodynia. Furthermore,
disasters in Minamata, Japan, in the 1950s and in Iraq in 1971-1972
clearly demonstrated neurologic effects associated with ingestion
of Mercury both in adults and in infants exposed in utero.
- In workplace case studies, very low exposure
to Mercury has been linked to neurologic and renal disorders.
Studies have confirmed more
subtle effects such as preclinical changes in kidney function
and behavioral and cognitive changes associated with effects
on the central nervous system. Chronic exposure can result in
neuropsychiatric symptoms such as "mad hatter syndrome"
or "erethism" and include tremor, anxiety, incapacitating
shyness and irritability. Mercury is a neurological poison affecting
primarily brain tissue. In adults, permanent brain damage is
focal affecting the function of such areas as the cerebellum
(ataxia) and the visual cortex (constricted visual fields). Methylmercury
also at high doses can cause severe damage to the developing
brain.
- Even trace amounts of Mercury are known to
be toxic to humans. In fact, various governmental and private
entities have determined that exposures of less than 1 microgram
per kilogram of body weight, per day, can have severe adverse
effects. The mercury in just one fever thermometer is enough
to contaminate more than 200 million gallons of water.
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
DENTAL AMALGAM
- Mercury is the major component
of amalgam dental fillings ñ approximately 50 percent
by molecular mass.
- The amount of mercury in each filling is
about three-fourths of a gram, or 750,000 micrograms,
enough to shut down a small lake from fishing ñ yet consumers
typically have multiple fillings. Many consumers have five to
fifteen fillings, and because of the actions outlined herein,
most remain unaware that their mouths are a virtual toxic environmental
hazard. Frequently, the mercury will also leach into the gums,
and from there immediately enter the human bloodstream.
- According to a report of the United States
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, mercury vapors
constantly emit from amalgam fillings ñ more heavily when
the consumer chews or drinks hot liquids or foods ñ with
the vaporized toxics going into the brain, kidneys, and other
organs, where the mercury may remain imbedded as a heavy metal
toxic. According to the United States Public Health Service,
the major cause of mercury toxicity for most people is not fish;
it is amalgam fillings.
- Because of the mercury, defendants warn dentists
that they should exercise extreme precautions to protect themselves
before placing the amalgam filling in a patientís mouth.
Furthermore, an amalgam filling is classified as a hazardous
waste as soon as it is removed from the mouth. Yet, according
to Defendants, it is absolutely harmless inside the patientís
mouth.
- According to the California Dental Board,
a state agency within the Department of Consumer Affairs, at
least three alternatives to mercury amalgam fillings exist: resin
(also known as composite), porcelain, and gold.
- Mercury formerly was commonly used in medicine,
but its usage is being withdrawn. For example, Mercurochrome
was used to fight infections and mercury was a preservative in
vaccines and contact lenses. Because of mercuryís extreme
toxicity, Mercurochrome is now banned; mercury has been taken
out of vaccines and contact lens solutions; and mercury thermometers
(due to breakage risks) are being removed from hospitals. Mercury
in any health use is now condemned via resolutions enacted
by the American Public Health Association, the California Medical
Association, and Health Care Without Harm. Yet Defendants steadfastly
defend its use and aggressively pursue those who speak out against
them.
DEFENDANTSí DECEPTION
- Solely based on the extreme toxicity of mercury,
and its considerable presence in dental amalgam, it is readily
apparent that the Defendants have been horribly deceptive and
dishonest with the American and California public. However, this
case is much more than that. These Defendants have undertaken
a course of conduct not only to conceal the toxicity of dental
amalgam, but to actually promote its use with claims of safety
and cost-effectiveness. Unlike many other health associations,
Defendants have also reaped a substantial financial benefit from
their conduct. Through their conduct, these Defendants have actually
caused and promoted the exposure of patients to one of the most
toxic substances known to man. Specifically, Defendants have
deceived or misled the California public in at least seven distinct
categories.
- First, Defendants deceive the public by
representing amalgam is "silver." As recently as
2000, the ADA printed brochures to the public which state that
amalgam is "silver." Exhibit A. Defendants give such
brochures to dentists to hand out to their patients. This is
a deliberate and conscious attempt to hide mercuryís presence.
In fact, "silver fillings" necessarily implies that
the fillings are primarily made of "silver." In reality,
the largest component of amalgam is mercury: "Silver-colored
dental fillings typically contain about 50% metallic mercury,"
according to Toxicological Profile for Mercury (Update, 1999),
a report of the United States Governmentís Agency for
Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, a part of the Public Health
Service, United States Department of Health and Human Services.
- Second, Defendants hide the existence
of mercury in dental fillings. Defendant California Dental
Association sent a memorandum to all of its member dentists to
avoid using the word "mercury" when making disclosures
about toxics used in the dental office.
- Unlike other health professions, the American
Dental Association has no protocol to warn, or even advise, dental
patients that amalgam contains the powerful neuro-toxin mercury.
- Third, Defendants hide their economic
stake in amalgam sales while declaring the product "safe."
The ADA has a Seal of Acceptance program, under which it uses
its name on commercial products. The ADA describes its program
as follows:
"When a product carries the ADA's Seal
of Acceptance, consumers can be confident that the product meets
ADA requirements for safety and effectiveness and that the manufacturer's
claims about that product are accurate."
The ADA further represents that "[t]he
Seal on a product is an assurance for consumers and dentists
against misleading or untrue statements concerning a product,
its use, safety and effectiveness." The ADA fails to disclose,
however, its large revenues from manufacturers of the various
commercial products with whom the ADA contracts in its Seal of
Acceptance program.
- Among the manufacturers who receive the ADA
Seal of Acceptance, and who pay revenues to the ADA, are several
manufacturers of amalgam products. The revenues may affect the
way the ADA promotes amalgam use. For example, in scientific
journals, the ADA admits that some consumers are allergic to
amalgam. But in its presentations to the public, the ADA pronounces
amalgam as safe for all.
- The American Medical Association
refuses to take money for endorsing products, a position which
allows the organization to maintain the appearance of integrity
and objectivity. By contrast, the American Dental
Association has chosen the opposite path to other health professions.
It provides endorsements and receives monetary payments from
the manufacturers of the products it endorses. Also significant
is the fact that the ADA owns two patents on dental amalgam (since
expired).
- Fourth, Defendants hide the controversy
about the health effects of mercury. Even though the United
States Public Health Service, other governments, scientific studies,
and many dentists themselves believe amalgam is dangerous for
vulnerable populations or for everyone, defendants refuse to
give both sides of this intense controversy. The use of mercury
amalgam is now subject to strong warnings by some mercury amalgam
manufacturers, by the government of Canada, and by the California
Dental Board:
- The manufacturer Dentsply issued the following
warning:
"Contraindication: The use of amalgam
is contraindicated:
In proximal or occlusal contact to dissimilar
metal restorations.
In patients with severe renal deficiency.
In patients with known allergies to mercury.
For retrograde or endodontic filling.
As a filling material for cast crown.
In children 6 and under
In expectant mothers.
- The manufacturer Vivadent adds "nursing
mothers" to its list of patients who should not receive
amalgam.
- The government of Canada issued a report
in 1996, a summary of which it sent to every dentist in that
country with a bilingual cover letter. The report recommended
that dentists cease giving mercury amalgam fillings to children,
pregnant women, and patients with kidney problems, braces, or
mercury allergies.
- The California Dental Board sent a newsletter
to all of its dentists in June, 2000, warning of the "reproductive
toxicity of the mercury contained in amalgam." The newsletter
also stated:
- Fifth, Defendants gag dentists who believe
amalgam is dangerous. Defendants have taken outward and aggressive
action to prevent any warnings from reaching the consumer. As
such, while they may not have actually produced and sold dental
amalgam, they have actively marketed it through their seal of
approval and through actively preventing dentists from communicating
mercuryís dangers to their patients. This is particularly
significant due to the unique structure of the medical industry.
In the medical field, warnings are rarely if ever communicated
directly by the manufacturers to the ultimate consumers. In this
industry warnings are communicated to the healthcare provider
and are then passed on to the patient.
- Defendant American Dental Association ("ADA"),
headquartered in Illinois, is the largest ñ but far from
the only ñ association of dentists in the United States.
More than two-thirds of American dentists belong to the ADA,
meaning that approximately one-third of American dentists belong
to competing dental societies or to no dental societies at all.
Approximately three-fourths of California dentists belong to
the CDA., meaning approximately one-fourth do not belong.
- Many dentists belong to dental societies
which oppose the use of mercury in dentistry. Such societies
include the International Academy for Oral Medicine and Toxicology,
based in Orlando, Florida; the American Academy of Biological
Dentistry, based in Carmel, California; and the Holistic Dental
Association, based in Colorado.
- Over a decade ago ñ- while its amalgam
patents were in effect -- the ADA instituted a gag rule on its
member dentists to limit its members from discussing dangers
of amalgam. Unbelievably, this was done through the guise of
so-called "ethical" rules. Through the use of their
mammoth economic and political power, the ADA and CDA have been
able to extend enforcement of the gag rule to the many dentists
who are not ADA members. The major means is through state boards
of dental examiners, a majority of whose members generally are
dentists and ADA members.
- Also, through their so-called "ethical"
rules, Defendants prevented dentists from informing patients
of the dangers of mercury by pronouncing as "unethical"
the practice of even suggesting the removal of amalgam due to
their toxicity.
- The provision is a gag rule. It prevents
the dentist from initiating conversations with patients about
the mercury amalgam controversy, lest they then decide to have
this toxic material removed from their mouths. The provision
is not aimed at stopping unnecessary dental practices. For example
it would not prevent dentists from suggesting amalgam removal
for cosmetic or any other reasons, nor for inducing the consumer
on any ground to spend money needlessly. The provision singles
out amalgam in a way that it does for no other procedure. No
other part of the Code of Ethics, with specificity, addresses
any other practices that could be considered unnecessary. The
provision actually conflicts with several other provisions of
the Code of Ethics. For example, the ADA Code of Ethics has the
principle of nonmaleficence ("do no harm"). And said
Code also requires its member dentists to stay current on science,
to report adverse reaction to any dental device, and to communicate
truthfully ñ something that may not be done if the dentist
is gagged from talking about potential adverse reactions from
amalgam.
- The ADA gag rule is contrary to medical standards.
First, it says dentists may not initiate conversations about
removing amalgam for health reasons, but the consumer may so
request. The entire value of a professional degree is to diagnose,
then initiate discussions about the diagnosis. The ADA has turned
the approach used by medicine on its head for its own economic
gain. Second, it says consumers may decide if the amalgam is
removed, whether needed or not. Presumably the AMA does not countenance
the removal of the appendix upon consumer request if the procedure
is not needed.
- Even if scientific evidence merited this
protectionist proviso in 1986, the ADA gag rule cannot be considered
valid today, in light of condemnation of mercury by Health Canada
and warnings by manufacturers and the California Dental Board.
- The ADA gag rule has a widespread chilling
effect beyond stopping the removal of fillings. Plaintiff dentists
and other mercury-free dentists risk their licenses by initiating
a discussion on the dangers of amalgam even when choosing what
new filling is to go into the patient, lest it lead to the patient
deciding to remove existing amalgam fillings. Thus, patients
ñ even pregnant women ñ do not get the warnings
they need before having fillings.
- The ADA gag rule is selective and discriminatory
in two ways. One, it does not prohibit a dentist from inducing
patients to spend money to have their serviceable amalgams removed
on the grounds of improving their appearance ñ even though
dentists is regulated as a health, not a cosmetics, profession.
Second, if the ADAís purpose is to stop unnecessary work,
it would attack all unnecessary procedures, instead of one whose
effect is to stop communications about the amalgam controversy.
- The ADA gag rule was adopted during the time
the ADA owned two patents on amalgam -- patent numbers 4,018,600
and 4,078,921. The ADA hid this obvious conflict of interest
from the public and most of its members.
- The ADA insists that its pro-amalgam policy
be the sole acceptable teaching regimen on mercury to get accredited.
As such dental colleges across the country, accept and enforce
the ADA policy that amalgam is safe for all students (even pregnant
ones), employees, and dental school patients.
- Dental Boards require that dentists attend
only ADA-accredited schools. To keep their accreditation, the
dental schools may not teach amalgam policies hostile to the
ADA.
- Dental colleges across the country are placing
dental students ñ especially women students who are or
wish to become pregnant and the children they may bear -- at
risk in order to become dentists. Dental colleges give no warnings
to such patients about the potential harm to mercury, nor do
they provide such warnings to employees constantly exposed to
mercury.
- Sixth, Defendants are hiding the dangerous
environmental impact from the public of amalgam. In 1998,
through its powerful lobbying presence, defendants secured a
consent order with the State of California permitting dentists
to avoid being accountable for the environmental impact of amalgam.
In fact, waste from dental offices remains a major contributor
of mercury to Californiaís waterways.
- Seventh, Defendant ADA created the third-party
reimbursement program to favor amalgam. The Delta Dental
Plans were created by the ADA. The ADA-created plans force poor
children, through Medi-Cal, to get only mercury fillings. Likewise,
public employees are covered only for mercury-based fillings.
Essentially, the Defendants created a system that actively hides
the dangers of mercury fillings and actually promotes them for
safety and cost-effectiveness. They also created dental health
plans. As a result, insurance companies and government health
plans such as Medi-Cal typically either do not cover alternative
treatments or only pay for the cost of mercury amalgam. Unbelievably,
this is one of the excuses that is extended by these same Defendants
as to why alternative treatments are not utilized.
- This aside, the cost difference between mercury
fillings and resin is small, and would be even smaller but for
the ADAís ability to restrain trade through creating the
third-party payment mechanism.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
Unlawful Business Practices in
Violation of Business & Professions Code ßß17200
et seq.
(Against All Defendants, Predicated
on California Health & Safety Code ß25249.6)
- Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference
as if specifically set forth herein Paragraphs 1 through 77 inclusive.
- California Business & Professions Code
ß17200 provides that "unfair competition shall mean
and include any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or
practice."
- Proposition 65 requires that clear and reasonable
warnings be given by persons who, in the course of doing business,
knowingly and intentionally expose any individual to a chemical
known to the state of California to cause cancer or reproductive
harm.
- Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based
on such information and belief alleges, that since July 1, 1988,
Defendants, and each of them, have engaged in conduct which violates
Health & Safety Code ß25249.6 et seq.
This conduct includes the placing into commerce of dental amalgam
containing Proposition 65-listed chemicals, including mercury,
without a clear and reasonable warning within the meaning of
Health & Safety Code ßß25249.6 and 25249.11.
- Separately, Defendants have undertaken and
continue to undertake a policy and practice, as manifested in
their so-called "ethical" rules, to prevent warnings
regarding mercury from reaching the exposed population, namely
the patients, or otherwise assuring that such warnings are not
ultimately provided to patients. This, in and of itself, causes
individuals to be exposed to this deadly chemical without warning
because through their efforts the Defendants, and each of them,
have effectively blocked the only pathway in the medical industry
for disclosure of health risks to patients. Specifically, in
the healthcare industry, the most prevalent, common, and widely
accepted method of providing warnings is through the healthcare
provider, the dentist. The ADAís efforts have either completely
shut down or otherwise chilled any effort to provide warnings
within the meaning of Health & Safety Code ßß25249.6
and 25249.11.
- At all times relevant to this action, Defendants,
and each of them, have knowingly and intentionally marketed and/or
otherwise caused to be placed into the stream of commerce, dental
amalgam containing Proposition 65-listed chemicals, including
mercury for sale or use in California.
- At all times relevant to this action, Defendants,
and each of them, have known and intended that the normal and
foreseeable use of the dental amalgam would expose individuals
to Proposition 65-listed chemicals, along with other hazardous
chemicals.
- Defendants, and each of them, have failed
to give clear and reasonable warning to individuals prior to
their exposure to Proposition 65-listed chemicals, including
mercury, through the normal and foreseeable use of dental amalgam.
- Individuals have suffered and continue to
suffer irreparable harm due to exposure to Proposition 65-listed
chemicals from dental amalgam without prior clear and reasonable
warning, contrary to the express policy and statutory prohibition
enacted by direct vote of the People of California in Proposition
65.
- By committing the acts alleged above, Defendants,
and each of them, have, in the course of doing business, knowingly
and intentionally exposed individuals to chemicals known to the
State of California to cause cancer and/or birth defects or other
reproductive harm without first giving clear and reasonable warning
to such individuals within the meaning of Health & Safety
Code ß25249.6. Furthermore, the aforementioned conduct
of Defendants, and each of them, has caused individuals within
California, including, but not limited to, normal and foreseeable
consumers and users of the dental amalgam to experience a higher
chance of developing cancer, and reproductive and developmental
injuries and/or other harm for which they currently need and
will continue to need medical monitoring.
- By committing the acts alleged above, Defendants,
and each of them, have violated and continue to violate Proposition
65, and thereby have engaged in a per se unlawful business
practice constituting unfair competition in violation of California
Business & Professions Code ßß17200 et
seq.
- An action for injunctive relief and restitution
under the Unfair Competition Act is specifically authorized by
Business & Professions Code ß17203.
- Continuing commission by Defendants, and
each of them, of the acts alleged above will irreparably harm
Plaintiff and the citizens of the State of California, for which
harm they have no plain, speedy or adequate remedy at law.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays judgment against
Defendants, and each of them, as set forth hereinbelow.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
Unlawful Business Practices in
Violation of Business & Professions Code ßß17200
et seq.
(Against All Defendants, Predicated
on California Business & Professions Code ß510)
- Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference
as if specifically set forth herein Paragraphs 1 through 90 inclusive.
- California Business & Professions Code
ß17200 provides that "unfair competition shall mean
and include any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or
practice."
- Business & Professions Code ß510(a)
provides, in relevant part, "[t]he purpose of this section
is to provide protection against retaliation for health care
practitioners who advocate for appropriate health care for their
patients." Subsection (b), in relevant part, provides that:
"[i]t is the public policy of the State of California
that a health care practitioner be encouraged to advocate for
appropriate health care for his or her patients." (Emphasis
added).
- Under Business & Professions Code ß510(c):
"The application and rendering by any
individual, partnership, corporation, or other organization of
a decision to . . . penalize a health care practitioner
principally for advocating for appropriate health care consistent
with that degree of learning and skill ordinarily possessed by
reputable health care practitioners with the same license or
certification and practicing according to the applicable legal
standard of care violates the public policy of this state."
(Emphasis added).
- As alleged hereinabove, Defendants, and each
of them, have undertaken and continue to undertake a policy and
practice, as manifested in their so-called "ethical"
rules, to prevent warnings and information regarding mercury
from reaching the exposed population, namely the patients, or
otherwise assuring that such warnings are not ultimately provided
to patients. Furthermore, as alleged hereinabove, Defendants,
and each of them, have prevented and continue to prevent dentists
from even suggesting the removal of dental amalgam based on its
toxicity.
- As alleged hereinabove, Defendants, and each
of them, have otherwise retaliated against dentists who disclose
to their patients the toxicity of mercury by causing the enforcement
of their gag rules.
- By committing the acts alleged above, Defendants,
and each of them, have violated and continue to violate Business
& Professions Code ß510, and thereby have engaged in
a per se unlawful business practice constituting unfair
competition in violation of California Business & Professions
Code ßß17200 et seq.
- An action for injunctive relief and restitution
under the Unfair Competition Act is specifically authorized by
Business & Professions Code ß17203.
- Continuing commission by Defendants, and
each of them, of the acts alleged above will irreparably harm
Plaintiff and the citizens of the State of California, for which
harm they have no plain, speedy or adequate remedy at law.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays judgment against
Defendants, and each of them, as set forth hereinbelow.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
Unlawful Business Practices in
Violation of Business & Professions Code ßß17200
et seq.
(Against All Defendants, Predicated
on California Business & Professions Code ß2056)
- Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference
as if specifically set forth herein Paragraphs 1 through 99 inclusive.
- California Business & Professions Code
ß17200 provides that "unfair competition shall mean
and include any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or
practice."
- Business & Professions Code ß2056(a)
provides, in relevant part, "[t]he purpose of this section
is to provide protection against retaliation for physicians who
advocate for appropriate health care for their patients."
Subsection (b), in relevant part, provides that: "[i]t is
the public policy of the State of California that a physician
and surgeon be encouraged to advocate for appropriate health
care for his or her patients." (Emphasis added).
- Under Business & Professions Code ß2056(c):
"The application and rendering by any
person of a decision to . . . penalize, a physician and
surgeon principally for advocating for medically appropriate
health care consistent with that degree of learning and skill
ordinarily possessed by reputable physicians practicing according
to the applicable legal standard of care violates the public
policy of this state." (Emphasis added).
- That section goes on to state:
"No person shall terminate, retaliate
against, or otherwise penalize a physician and surgeon
for that advocacy, nor shall any person prohibit, restrict,
or in any way discourage a physician and surgeon from
communicating to a patient information in furtherance of
medically appropriate health care." Emphasis added.
- As alleged hereinabove, Defendants, and each
of them, have undertaken and continue to undertake a policy and
practice, as manifested in their so-called "ethical"
rules, to prevent warnings and information regarding mercury
from reaching the exposed population, namely the patients, or
otherwise assuring that such warnings are not ultimately provided
to patients. Furthermore, as alleged hereinabove, Defendants,
and each of them, have prevented and continue to prevent dentists
from even suggesting the removal of dental amalgam based on its
toxicity.
- As alleged hereinabove, Defendants, and each
of them, have otherwise retaliated against dentists who disclose
to their patients the toxicity of mercury by causing the enforcement
of their gag rules.
- By committing the acts alleged above, Defendants,
and each of them, have violated and continue to violate Business
& Professions Code ß2056, and thereby have engaged
in a per se unlawful business practice constituting unfair
competition in violation of California Business & Professions
Code ßß17200 et seq.
- An action for injunctive relief and restitution
under the Unfair Competition Act is specifically authorized by
Business & Professions Code ß17203.
- Continuing commission by Defendants, and
each of them, of the acts alleged above will irreparably harm
Plaintiff and the citizens of the State of California, for which
harm they have no plain, speedy or adequate remedy at law.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays judgment against
Defendants, and each of them, as set forth hereinbelow.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Unfair and Deceptive Business Practices
in Violation of Business &
Professions Code ßß17200 et seq.
(Against All Defendants)
- Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference
as if specifically set forth herein Paragraphs 1 through 109
inclusive.
- California Business & Professions Code
ß17200 provides that "unfair competition shall mean
and include unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice."
- The Unfair Competition Act defines unfair
competition to include any "unfair," "unlawful"
or "deceptive" business practice. Business & Professions
Code ß 17200. The Act provides for injunctive relief and
restitution for violations. Business and Professions Code ß
17203.
- As alleged hereinabove, California has a
long-standing and ever-growing public policy that the public
should be informed about exposures to chemicals that cause cancer,
birth defects, or other reproductive harm due to the fact that
these chemicals pose a serious potential threat to public health
and that such exposures must be eliminated wherever and whenever
possible. As alleged hereinabove, this public policy was overwhelmingly
approved by the People of this State and subsequently codified
in the Health & Safety Code.
- As alleged hereinabove, California has a
public policy to encourage physicians and healthcare providers
to advocate for appropriate healthcare for their patients.
- As alleged hereinabove, Defendants, and each
of them, have failed and continue to fail and refuse to warn
the general public as to the adverse health effects associated
with Mercury as used in dental amalgam. Furthermore, Defendants,
and each of them, have a policy and practice directed toward
preventing warnings regarding mercury from reaching the exposed
population, namely the patients, or otherwise assuring that such
warnings are not ultimately provided to patients. Additionally,
Defendants, and each of them, retaliate against dentists who
advocate the use of appropriate care meant to prevent mercury
exposure.
- Therefore, Defendants, and each of them,
have engaged, and continue to engage in a practice which violates
an established public policy. Defendants, and each of them, have
knowingly and intentionally concealed, and continue to conceal
these hazards, and in fact, actively foster and perpetuate the
false belief in California consumers, other foreseeable users
of dental amalgam, and other individuals that dental amalgam
is free from the hazards alleged herein.
- As alleged hereinabove, during most of or
the entire period during which Defendants have produced dental
amalgam, Defendants, and each of them, have engaged in a campaign
of deceiving individuals and the general public about the health
effects of Mercury and potential hazards of dental amalgam. In
fact, through their actions and omissions, including, but not
limited to, their seal of approval, their brochures, and their
so-called "ethical" rules, both written and oral, Defendants,
and each of them, have concealed or otherwise understated the
adverse health effects of mercury, and dental amalgam, and have
stagnated, to the extent possible, research and development,
and use of substitute products. Additionally, entities that are
attempting to use alternative products, are likely to, and in
fact, do suffer competitive injury as a result of Defendantsí
conduct.
- Additionally, Defendants, and each of them,
willfully and intentionally attempted to deceive and/or deceived
the general public and Plaintiffs by making false statements
and/or omissions regarding dental amalgam, including, but not
limited to, willfully and intentionally failing to disclose that
through the normal and foreseeable use of dental amalgam, individuals
within the general public are being exposed to Chemicals which
are carcinogens and/or reproductive and/or developmental toxins.
- Furthermore, as alleged hereinabove, while
being extremely injurious to consumers and the general public,
the use of dental amalgam can be either eliminated or minimized
greatly. As such, Defendantsí practices are immoral, unethical,
oppressive, and unscrupulous. Furthermore, Defendants, and each
of them, have been and are currently, willfully engaging in unfair,
deceptive, and unlawful business practices in violation of the
Unfair Competition Act.
- Moreover, as alleged hereinabove, Defendants,
and each of them, are causing and continue to cause competitive
injury to entities and individuals that are developing or attempting
to use alternative products which are safer or otherwise do not
exhibit the adverse health effects associated with mercury.
- Accordingly, Defendants, and each of them,
have violated and continue to violate California Business &
Professions Code ß17200's proscription against engaging
in unlawful, unfair, and deceptive business practices and are
liable for restitution, and penalties for their conduct and for
damages suffered by individuals and the general public. Defendants,
and each of them, must be enjoined from further engaging in these
practices as more fully set forth below.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays judgment against
Defendants, and each of them, as set forth hereinbelow.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Deceptive Business Practices in
Violation of Business & Professions Code ßß17200
et seq.
(Against All Defendants)
- Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference
as if specifically set forth herein Paragraphs 1 through 121
inclusive.
- As alleged hereinabove, Defendants, and each
of them, willfully attempted to deceive and/or deceived the general
public and Plaintiff by making false statements and/or omissions
regarding dental amalgam. In fact, as alleged hereinabove, Defendants,
and each of them, have for years, caused exposures of individuals
and the general public to mercury without any warning or inadequate
warning.
- As alleged herein, Defendants, and each of
them, willfully attempted to and did actually deceive the general
public and Plaintiff by actively fostering the false belief that
mercury from dental amalgam does not pose any significant health
risk or otherwise does not cause certain adverse health effects.
The statements made by Defendants are and were false, and were
made with the intent to induce, and in some cases, did actually
induce reliance by individuals within the general public.
- Despite the fact the Defendants, and each
of them, have known of the grave potential for harmful effects
from mercury and despite the mandates of Proposition 65, common
law, and established public policy, and Defendantsí duties
thereunder, Defendants, and each of them, have knowingly and
intentionally concealed same from the general public, in particular,
individuals within California. As such, Defendantsí statements
as to dental amalgam have been and continue to be false and Defendants
have no reasonable basis for believing that these statements
were or are true. Thus, Defendants, and each of them, have committed
and continue to commit fraud and deceit, and engage in unfair
and deceptive practices within the meaning of the Unfair Competition
Act.
- Furthermore, Defendants, and each of them,
have made and continue to make representations through their
correspondence, brochures, literature, their so-called "ethical"
rules, and actions, both express and implied, that dental amalgam
is safe for use and that there is no health concern related thereto..
As alleged hereinabove, said statements are false as dental amalgam
does, in actuality, cause substantial exposure of individuals
to mercury, a deadly toxin, and as such violates numerous common
laws and statutes, including but not limited to, Proposition
65, and Defendants have been, at all times alleged herein, aware
of the falsity of their representations. In fact, Defendants,
and each of them, have perpetuated and continue to actively cause
the general public to believe that dental amalgam and the Mercury
therefrom is safe and in compliance with all applicable laws
and statutes. These statements were and continue to be false,
and Defendants have no reasonable basis for believing that these
statements were or are true. Furthermore, individuals and the
general public are likely to be deceived by said statements,
omissions, and/or practices. Defendants have therefore engaged
in unfair, and deceptive practices within the meaning of the
Unfair Competition Act.
- As alleged hereinabove, entities and individuals
that are attempting to use safer, non-hazardous, alternatives
are suffering competitive injury as Defendants, and each of them,
through their actions, have been and continue to purposefully,
willfully, and intentionally, stifle and hinder the development
and use of such alternatives.
- Defendants, and each of them, including DOE
Defendants 1 through 500, are liable for each otherís
fraud and deceit because, as alleged hereinabove, these tortfeasors
acted on behalf of all other Defendants, within the scope of
their agency and/or employment. All acts and omissions on the
part of these Defendants were implicitly or explicitly ratified,
consented to and approved by all other Defendants.
- The acts and omissions of Defendants, and
each of them, proximately caused property damage and injuries
to individuals and the general public as alleged hereinabove.
- Accordingly, Defendants, and each of them,
have violated and continue to violate California Business &
Professions Code ß17200's proscription against engaging
in unlawful, unfair, and deceptive business practices and are
liable for restitution, and penalties for their conduct and for
damages suffered by individuals and the general public. Defendants,
and each of them, must be enjoined from further engaging in these
practices as more fully set forth below.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays judgment against
Defendants, and each of them, as set forth hereinbelow.
NEED FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
- By committing the acts alleged herein, Defendants,
and each of them, have caused irreparable harm for which there
is no plain, speedy or adequate remedy at law. In the absence
of equitable relief, Defendants will continue to cause unwarned
exposures of the general public to chemicals as alleged herein,
and will continue to discharge said chemicals into sources of
drinking water. As such the general public will continue to be
involuntarily exposed to said chemicals without a clear and reasonable
warning, creating substantial risk of irreparable physical injury.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff pray for judgment against
defendants as follows:
a. That the Court, pursuant to Health &
Safety Code ß25249.7(b) assess civil penalties against
Defendant ADA in the amount of $2,500 per day for each violation
alleged herein;
b. That the Court, pursuant to Health &
Safety Code ß25249.7(a) and Business & Professions
Code ß17203, preliminarily and permanently enjoin Defendants,
and each of them, and their agents, employees, assigns, and all
persons acting in concert or participating with them from:
(1) Disseminating false, misleading, and inaccurate
information as set forth in Defendantsí written materials
regarding the existence and toxicity of mercury in dental amalgam
without first providing, to consumers and users, and other individuals
who come into contact with such amalgams. Plaintiff shall sufficiently
specify this prayer for relief and the basis therefor in further
application to the Court;
(2) Referring to mercury amalgam fillings
as "silver." Plaintiff shall sufficiently specify this
prayer for relief and the basis therefor in further application
to the Court;
c. That the Court, pursuant to Health &
Safety Code ß25249.7(a) and Business & Professions
Code ß17203, issue a preliminary and permanent injunction
requiring Defendants to provide clear and reasonable warnings
to consumers and dental professionals, that the amalgam cause
exposure to Mercury and Mercury Compounds, chemicals known to
the State of California to be reproductive and/or developmental
toxins, and which are neurotoxins, and are associated with a
host of other adverse health effects as alleged herein. Plaintiff
shall sufficiently specify this prayer for relief and the basis
therefor in further application to the Court;
d. That the Court, pursuant to Health &
Safety Code ß25249.7(a) and Business & Professions
Code ß17203, issue a preliminary and permanent injunction
requiring Defendants to remove from their ethical rules any rule
that prohibits a dental professional from discussing with his
or her patients the risks and efficacies of mercury amalgam fillings
or otherwise
c. That the Court grant restitution to individuals
in the state of California of the monies earned by Defendants
from dental amalgam as set forth herein;
d. That the Court grant Plaintiff their reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs of suit; and
/ / /
/ / /
e. That the Court grant such other and further
relief as may be just and proper.
By:
SHAWN KHORRAMI, ESQ.
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
|
