1. Gross Dental Malpractice Case vs “Dr. F” Lodged by Patient [Facilitator: Michael Pastien] 12/07/15
* Due to the negligent overall care I’ve received from “Dr F” and lack of trust in dentists I’ve had as a result; I have
not had any dental care since June 2010, and the condition of certain teeth in particular, has seriously deteriorated.
Gross Malpractice Summary
March 13 2008 – Objectionable Overall Caliber X-Rays
– Misdiagnosis of 2 Double Root Canals
Sept 30 2009 – No New X-Rays [Especially Tooth #46 and All Quadrant Bitewings & Periapicals]
– Double Root Canal Contradictions
– $65 Overcharge
April 22 2010 – Objectionable Caliber New X-Rays [No Periapicals of Lower Teeth were Ever Taken at any Visit]
– False Claim of Abscess Showing in [Tooth #15] X-Ray
– Recommended Tooth #15 Extraction or Root Canal PLUS a Crown on Unsubstantiated Evidence
May 18 2010 – Root Canal/Crown $259 Overcharge
March 13 2008 1st
Exam – $8K Dark Area of “Vital” Concern – Evangelical Bombshell
Dr F identified a “likely” serious Tooth #46 roots tip fringe darkness problem; that in his estimation best be promptly
cleaned out, otherwise it may flare up unexpectedly into something major. I stated that I had never perceived any
indications of issues or tingling in that area, but Dr F responded that such a fact had little relevance.
The work would include a bridge, plus replacing my crown with a smaller one because it was “too big” & “unnatural”.
* He also said a double root canal would be needed there, and when I replied that I’d already had one in that spot, he
boldly pointed to the X-Ray saying “No, I hadn’t had one there, see? But claimed I’d had one in the upper left area.
My overall response was that there was no certainty from him a problem existed there…nor, could I afford the work.
* No printed mention whatsoever of this $8K Dark Area of “Vital” Concern was given to me at the end of this exam;
along with the Treatment Plan and pricing I received for all the other teeth which were singled out to be worked on.
Sept 30 2009 “Recall” Exam
* Dr F began to replay his $8K Dark Area of “Vital” Concern Sales Pitch; and dazed me by pointing to the March
’08 X-Rays casually stating the exact opposite, of where he had previously told me I’d had a double root canal. This
contradiction was further evidence that Dr F was ominously unreliable.
I replied that this same Tooth #46 roots fringe darkness was a notable concern at my Alberta Dental Association 2000
X-Ray Examination, as a result of a “Fraud” complaint lodged against my previous Dentist (who had just mounted a
crown above that area); and the darkness didn’t appear to have grown at all, in comparison to my March 13 ’08 X-Ray.
* Hours later, his receptionist notified me that she misread the coding on my payment, and corrected a $65 overcharge.
April 22 2010 {I Booked this Visit due to Sensitivity @ URQ area}
* New Objectionable Caliber X-Rays were taken...Notably Missing Several Periapicals…CHIEFLY Tooth #46
May 18 2010
We renegotiated a $259 surcharge (in response to my phone inquiry about it) which he apologized for having neglected
to mention in his initially cited overall Root Canal/Crown price (that he hadn’t given me a written copy of).

2. “QUESTIONNAIRE”
1 – Was there a Failure in identifying likely Problems in X-Rays, along Tooth #47 Roots + Other Teeth?
2 – Prerequisite Sets of X-Rays are recommended every 6 to 18 months for Older/High Risk Patients…aren’t they?
3 – Why were No X-Rays taken by “Dr F” at my Sept 30 2009 Exam, especially considering how “concerned” he was
about the overall condition of my teeth (Assortment of Fractures, Ex: Tooth #37) in my March 13 ’08 X-Rays?
The Fact that no follow-up Panoramic or Tooth #46 Periapical X-Ray was ever taken definitely points to a genuine
lack of concern of their being any potential problem around the roots of my bottom teeth for the next few years.
It’s “intriguing” to note, that in view of how anxious Dr. F claimed to be about his alleged $8K Dark Area of “Vital”
Concern; he never tried to negotiate a mutually realistic financing plan with me to get this “vital” work done.
* The basic “startup” option which Dr F offered me on March 13 2008 was so irresponsibly “pathetic” that I would
have refused allowing him to do it for free.
4 – What exactly were the basic $8K 1st
& 2nd
Stages of the work Dr F proposed…each going to comprise of?
5 – If I had chosen Dr F’s April 22 option of extracting Tooth #15, it would have been extracted immediately?
6 – I need a logical explanation as to why I was referred to “Dr M”. I’ve supposed...he’s “Bionically Special”
* The “ambiguous” May 3 booking with Dr M was explicitly to get a Root Canal at that Visit...not a “Consultation”
7 – Dr M received a poor caliber URQ X-Ray which shows no abscess anywhere from Dr F, identifying Tooth #15 as
the Problem. However, Dr M performed Quad Surgery on Tooth #16 without first taking an X-Ray with his Clearly
Superior Facilities. *I have filed a separate Complaint to the RCDSO in regards to Dr M
* Correction of crossing out Tooth #15 (at “some” point) should clearly have been initialed and dated by Dr F, plus
initialed by a witnessing staff member
Objectionable Caliber X-Rays Bonus Notes:
The Sub-Par X-Ray Equipment Dr F used, seems well below what should be professionally acceptable; and his staff is
pathetically trained in the ability of taking proficient X-Rays. What should have been routine series and types of X-
Rays were grossly negligently not followed.
March 13 ’08: Charged for a mediocre Panoramic, 2 pairs of very poorly positioned virtual duplicate Bitewings; in
addition to a dim caliber URQ Periapical. [No Periapicals of Lower Teeth were Taken]
April 22 ’10: Again charged for 2 pairs of very poorly positioned, virtual duplicate Bitewings; in addition to the dim
caliber URQ Periapical which was sent to Dr M. [No Periapicals of Lower Teeth were Ever Taken at any Visit]
ADDENDUM
“Dr F” has irrefutably proven himself on several counts (in my case alone), as being so grossly incompetent and
dishonest; that his license to “practice” Dentistry should be immediately revoked indefinitely.
* A modified version of this letter is being posted on “Case Facilitator” Michael Pastien’s Premium LinkedIn Account,
as a case he is working on for a client; in association with the Royal College of Dental Surgeons of Ontario, in regards
to an as yet unnamed dentist. http://ca.LinkedIn.com/in/MichaelPastien
[This case was first lodged on 11/8/15 at 3:39pm for which I received an RCDSO auto confirmation, but a website glitch apparently occurred]
Michael Pastien (613)799-9110 M.Pastien@Yahoo.Ca Ottawa, ON, K1N7E8