ToxicTeeth.net

 

 

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

        Telephone: (818) 947-5111

        Facsimile: (818) 947-5121

CHARLES G. BROWN, ESQ., pro hac vice

SWANKIN & TURNER

1400 Sixteenth Street N.W.

Suite 330

Washington, DC 20036

        Telephone: (202) 462-8800

        Facsimile: (202) 265-6564

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

    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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;
    1. 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.
    2. 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.
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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
  10. Kids Against Pollution ("KAP") is a nonprofit organization of active youth throughout the United States, with offices in Utica, New York.
  11. 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.
  12. The American Academy of Biological Dentistry ("AABD") is a nonprofit organization headquartered in Carmel Valley, California. AABD and its members advocate mercury-free dentistry.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. At all times relevant herein, Defendant CDA transacted business in the State of California, County of Los Angeles.
  16. 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.
  17. At all times relevant herein, Defendant ADA transacted business in the State of California, County of Los Angeles.
  18. 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.
  19. Plaintiffs will ask leave to amend this Complaint to state said Defendantsí true identities and capacities when the same have been ascertained.
  20. 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.
  21. 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.)

  22. 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."
  23. "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.
  24. 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.
  25. 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.
  26. 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."
  27. 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.
  28. 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

  29. 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.
  30. 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.
  31. 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)

  32. 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).
  33. 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
  34. 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.
  35. 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.
  36. 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.
  37. 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.
  38. 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.
  39. 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
  40. Mercury is the major component of amalgam dental fillings ñ approximately 50 percent by molecular mass.
  41. 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.
  42. 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.
  43. 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.
  44. 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.
  45. 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
  46. 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.
  47. 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.
  48. 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.
  49. 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.
  50. 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.

  51. 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.
  52. 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).
  53. 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:
    1. 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.

  54. The manufacturer Vivadent adds "nursing mothers" to its list of patients who should not receive amalgam.
  55. 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.
  56. 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:

      "[This newsletter article] suggest[s] that dentists discuss with their patients the percentage of mercury in amalgam and that mercury and other substances used in dental offices are designated hazardous under [California] Proposition 65. The Board encourages discussion between the dentist and patient regarding the potential sensitivity and allergic or adverse reactions to mercury by some patients."

    • Thus, defendants by their deceptions have a particularized effect on unborn children, young children, and people with kidney problems or braces by declaring amalgam to be safe for all.
  57. 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.
  58. 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.
  59. 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.
  60. 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.
  61. 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.
  62. 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.
  63. 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.
  64. 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.
  65. 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.
  66. 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.
  67. 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.
  68. 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.
  69. 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.
  70. 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.
  71. 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.
  72. 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.
  73. 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)
  74. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference as if specifically set forth herein Paragraphs 1 through 77 inclusive.
  75. California Business & Professions Code ß17200 provides that "unfair competition shall mean and include any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice."
  76. 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.
  77. 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.
  78. 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.
  79. 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.
  80. 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.
  81. 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.
  82. 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.
  83. 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.
  84. 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.
  85. An action for injunctive relief and restitution under the Unfair Competition Act is specifically authorized by Business & Professions Code ß17203.
  86. 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)

     
  87. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference as if specifically set forth herein Paragraphs 1 through 90 inclusive.
  88. California Business & Professions Code ß17200 provides that "unfair competition shall mean and include any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice."
  89. 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).
  90. 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).

  91. 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.
  92. 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.
  93. 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.
  94. An action for injunctive relief and restitution under the Unfair Competition Act is specifically authorized by Business & Professions Code ß17203.
  95. 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)

     
  96. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference as if specifically set forth herein Paragraphs 1 through 99 inclusive.
  97. California Business & Professions Code ß17200 provides that "unfair competition shall mean and include any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice."
  98. 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).
  99. 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).

  100. 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.

  101. 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.
  102. 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.
  103. 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.
  104. An action for injunctive relief and restitution under the Unfair Competition Act is specifically authorized by Business & Professions Code ß17203.
  105. 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)
  106. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference as if specifically set forth herein Paragraphs 1 through 109 inclusive.
  107. California Business & Professions Code ß17200 provides that "unfair competition shall mean and include unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice."
  108. 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.
  109. 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.
  110. As alleged hereinabove, California has a public policy to encourage physicians and healthcare providers to advocate for appropriate healthcare for their patients.
  111. 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.
  112. 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.
  113. 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.
  114. 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.
  115. 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.
  116. 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.
  117. 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)

     
  118. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference as if specifically set forth herein Paragraphs 1 through 121 inclusive.
  119. 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.
  120. 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.
  121. 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.
  122. 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.
  123. 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.
  124. 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.
  125. 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.
  126. 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
  127. 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.

                    Dated: June 12, 2001 LAW OFFICES OF SHAWN KHORRAMI

By:

SHAWN KHORRAMI, ESQ.

Attorneys for Plaintiffs