COMES NOW the Plaintiff, DR. DIXIE CRANMER McREYNOLDS, by and through her undersigned attorney and for her causes of action set forth below, states as follows:
COUNT I
PROFESSIONAL MALPRACTICE
1. At all times mentioned herein, Plaintiff, Dr. Dixie Cranmer McReynolds, was and is a resident of Jackson County, State of Missouri, residing at 3660 Madison Ave., Kansas City, Missouri 64111.
2. At all times mentioned herein, Defendant, Mr. William R. McReynolds, was and is a resident of Jackson County, Missouri, residing at 3660 Madison Avenue, Kansas City, Missouri 64111.
3. The filing of this case constitutes a refiling of a Cause of Action previously dismissed without prejudice less than a year ago and is being refiled under Section 516.230 R.S.Mo.
4. At all times mentioned herein, defendant Jerome J. Mindrup, D.D.S., was licensed dentists in the field of dental medicine with his principal place of business being located at 411 J.D. Nichols Road, Plaza Time Building, Suite 190, Kansas City, Missouri 64112. Dr. Mindrup at the time of the services rendered to the Plaintiff and presently is licensed by the Missouri Dental Board of Jackson County, Missouri.
5. That the defendant, Jerome J. Mindrup, D.D.S., Inc., is a professional corporation authorized to do business in Missouri wit its principal place of business located at 411 J.C. Nichols Road Plaza Time Building, Suite 190, Kansas City, Missouri 64112. The principal practice being in the field of dentistry, licensed by the Missouri State Board of Dental Medicine, Jefferson City, Missouri; and said corporation is in good standing. The Corporation can be served by process on its registered agent, Dr. Jerome J. Mindrup, D.D.S., 411 J.D. Nichols Road, Plaza Time Building, Suite 190, Kansas City, MO 64112.
7. That on or about the 8th day of October, 1992, Plaintiff Dr. Dixie Cranmer McReynolds, engaged the defendant Jerome J. Mindrup, D.D.S., as an individual, and Jerome J. Mindrup, D.D.S., Inc., a corporation, at their joint medical facility, 411 J.D. Nichols Road, Plaza Time Building, Suite 190, Kansas City, MO 64112, to provide dental services for hire in Jackson County, Missouri. Said dental services consisted of removing mercury amalgam fillings from her left upper teeth for the purpose of filling said teeth with gold or other composites not of mercury amalgam substance. That the defendants Jerome J. Mindrup, D.D.S., and Jerome J. Mindrup, D.D.S., Inc., jointly and severally in their medical dental capacity, as an individual and as a corporation, undertook to examine and treat Plaintiff jointly and severally at their medical dental office on or about October 8, 1992 and thereafter for the purposes stated herein.
8. That previous to this dentist/patient service on the 8th day of October, 1992, the Plaintiff Dr. Dixie Cranmer McReynolds had been a patient of Defendants Jerome J. Mindrup, D.D.S. and Jerome J. Mindrup, D.D.S., Inc., for approximately five (5) years with a complete set of dental and medical records pertaining to her condition of being allergic to and hypersensitive to and reactive negatively to the insertion of mercury amalgam fillings.
9. That the Plaintiff Dr. Dixie Cranmer McReynolds requested the Defendants Jerome J. Mindrup, D.D.S. and Jerome J. Mindrup, D.D.S., Inc. to remove said mercury amalgam fillings in a safe manner and to replace said fillings with gold or other composite material.
10. That the Plaintiff Dr. Dixie Cranmer McReynolds requested the Defendants Jerome J. Mindrup, D.D.S. and Jerome J. Mindrup, D.D.S., Inc.(s) to remove said mercury amalgam fillings in a safe manner in providing said health care to the Plaintiff Dr. Dixie Cranmer McReynolds.
11. The Defendants Jerome J. Mindrup, D.D.S. and Jerome J. Mindrup, D.D.S., Inc. also placed mercury amalgam fillings in said Plaintiff Dr. Dixie Cranmer McReynolds against her wishes, knowing that she is allergic to said fillings and also against her specific advice to not put said fillings in.
10. That Defendants Jerome J. Mindrup, D.D.S. and Jerome J. Mindrup, D.D.S., Inc.s’ health care providers as dentist were negligent in that the medical dental services performed were below the minimum standard of care ordinarily expected and performed by members of the same profession in the following ways:
(A) That the Defendants Jerome J. Mindrup, D.D.S. and Jerome J. Mindrup, D.D.S., Inc.s’ removal of the mercury amalgam fillings was below the standard of care for the removal of mercury amalgam fillings for a person who is allergic and hypersensitive to said removal. The Defendants Jerome J. Mindrup, D.D.S. and Jerome J. Mindrup, D.D.S., Inc.s were further negligent in the process employed inthe removal.
(B) That the Defendants Jerome J. Mindrup, D.D.S. and Jerome J. Mindrup, D.D.S., Inc.s were negligent in that they specifically knew the Plaintiff Dr. Dixie Cranmer McReynolds’s history and the fact that Plaintiff Dr. Dixie Cranmer McReynolds was allergic to and hypersensitive and would react negatively to mercury amalgam fillings; and the Defendants Jerome J. Mindrup, D.D.S. and Jerome J. Mindrup, D.D.S., Inc.s were negligent by not reviewing said records and negligent in placing said new fillings int he new mercury amalgam in the mouth of the Plaintiff Dr. Dixie Cranmer McReynolds.
(C) That the Defendants Jerome J. Mindrup, D.D.S. and Jerome J. Mindrup, D.D.S., Inc.s were negligent in that they specifically did not follow the instructions of the Plaintiff Dr. Dixie Cranmer McReynolds in not using mercury amalgam fillings. The Plaintiff Dr. Dixie Cranmer McReynolds specifically instructed the Defendants Jerome J. Mindrup, D.D.S. and Jerome J. Mindrup, D.D.S., Inc.s not to use mercury amalgam fillings.
(D) That the Defendants Jerome J. Mindrup, D.D.S. and Jerome J. Mindrup, D.D.S., Inc.s were negligent in using mercury amalgam fillings instead of gold or other substancees.
11. That the health care provider Defendants Jerome J. Mindrup, D.D.S. and Jerome J. Mindrup, D.D.S., Inc.s’ actions were negligent and below the standard of care in the dental industry and as a direct and proximate result thereof, Plaintiff, Dr. Cranmer McReynolds, suffered serious and permanent damage in such amounts that juridiction is in this Court.
12. As a resuult of the negligence of the Defendants Jerome J. Mindrup, D.D.S. and Jerome J. Mindrup, D.D.S., Inc.s mentioned previously, Dr. Dixie Cranmer Mcreynolds’ condition worsened and was untrreated and resulted in continuous need for emdical treatment, corrective dental work, pain and suffering and permanent disability.
13. As a direct result of the negligence of the Defendants Jerome J. Mindrup, D.D.S. and Jerome J. Mindrup, D.D.S., Inc.s and the continuing medical probvlems of Dr. Dixie Cranmer McReynolds as described in the preceding paragrahs, the Plaintiff Dr. Dixie Cranmer McReynolds has suffered damages. Plaintiff Dr. Dixie Cranmer McReynolds has lost extended sums for medical treatment and medical care and incurred bills for the same, medical services, consortium losses, companionship losses, pain and suffering and continued dental problems and neurological problems as the body as the whole including headaches, nausea, vision problems, hearing problems and all other areas of neurological concern. Plaintiff Dr. Dixie Cranmer McReynolds has also lost income due to her inability to work professionally.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Dr. Dixie Cranmer McReynolds prays judgment against Defendants Jerome J. Mindrup, D.D.S. and Jerome J. Mindrup, D.D.S., Inc.s for dental malpractice in such sums that are fair and reasonable and for her costs herien incurred. Plaintiff Dr. Dixie Cranmer McReynolds requests damages under Missouri law that are fair, just and reasonable in excess of $15,000.
COUNT II
ASSAULT AND BATTERY
COMES NOW the Plaintiff, DR. DIXIE CRANMER McREYNOLDS, by and through her undersigned attorney, and for Count II of her Petition against the Defendants Jerome J. Mindrup, D.D.S. and Jerome J. Mindrup, D.D.S., Inc.s, states as follows:
14. The plaintiffs reincorporate by reference paragraph numbers one through thirteen as fully set forth herein.
15. That the actions of the Defendants Jerome J. Mindrup, D.D.S. and Jerome J. Mindrup, D.D.S., Inc.s in placing a mercury amalgam fillings in Plaintiff Dr. Dixie Cranmer McReynolds’s mouth on October 8, 1992, were without permission of the Plaintiff Dr. Dixie Cranmer McReynolds who specifically instructed the Defendants Jerome J. Mindrup, D.D.S. and Jerome J. Mindrup, D.D.S., Inc.s not to use mercury amalgam analysis filling and as such were an unlawful and unauthorized invasion of Plaintiff Dr. Dixie Cranmer McReynolds’s body. As such, these actions were offensive and against the will of the Plaintiff Dr. Dixie Cranmer McReynolds herein. The Plaintiff Dr. Dixie Cranmer McReynolds did not consent to the insertion of the mercury amalgam in her body and as such these actions of the Defendans were an assault and a battery on her body.
WHEREFORE, for the above-captioned reasons, Plaintiff Dr. Dixie Cranmer McReynolds suffered and continues to suffer physical injuries as set forth in Count I of this Petition as well as emotional injuries for the invasion and intrusion in her body. Plaintiff Dr. Dixie Cranmer McReynolds requests damages under Missouri law that are fair, just and reasonable in excess of $15,000.
COUNT III
NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION
17. Plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs 1-16 as if fully set forth herein.
18. At all times mentioned herein, Defendants Jerome J. Mindrup, D.D.S. and Jerome J. Mindrup, D.D.S., Inc. The American Dental Association (hereinafter the "ADA") was and is a corporation organized for the purpose of representing the profession of American dentistry and for the purpose of certifying the safety and effectiveness of various dental products. The ADA is a dental trade organization that advises and educates the dental profession on developments in the field of dentistry. The ADA publishes newsletters and a professional journal that are distributed to its membership and are made available to the field of dentistry nationally and internationally. One of the services provided by the ADA includes certification of the safety and effectiveness of various dental products, including dental restorative materials such as dental amalgam. The ADA has continuously represented to its professional membership through flyers, pamphlets, journals, newsletters and other communications, that dental amalgam is "safe and effective" as a dental restorative material. However, the ADA knew or should have known that said representations by the ADA were false. Relevant scientific literature published in peer reviewed journals has repeatedly and convincingly demonstrated that dental amalgam poses a significant risk of harm to dental patients in which the amalgam is placed. Constituents of dental amalgam are toxic and potentially harmful to dental patients such as Plaintiff Dr. Dixie Cramner McReynolds. The representations of the ADA concerning the alleged safety and effectiveness of dental amalgam were considered and relied upon by Defendants Jerome J. Mindrup, D.D.S. and Jerome J. Mindrup, D.D.S., Inc. Mindrup. At the time he treated Plaintiff Dr. Dixie Cranmer McReynolds Dr. Dixie Cramner McReynolds on ___, 1991, Defendants Jerome J. Mindrup, D.D.S. and Jerome J. Mindrup, D.D.S., Inc. Mindrup believed that dental amalgam was safe and effective as a dental restorative material and posed no significant risk of harm to human health.
19. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid negligent misrepresentations by the ADA, Defendant Mindrup believed himself justified in ignoring the request of Plaintiff Dr. Dixie Cramner McReynolds to refrain from placing dental amalgam products in her teeth.
20. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid negligen misrepesentation by the ADA, Plaintiff Dr. Dixie Cramner McReynolds has suffered and continues to suffer physical injuries as set forth in Count I of this Petition as well as emotional injuries for the invasion and intrusion in her body.
WHEREFORE, for the above-captioned reasons, Plaintiff suffered and continues to suffer physical injuries as set forth in Count I of this Petition as well as emotional injuries for the invasion and intrusion in her body. Plaintiff requests damages under Missouri law that are fair, just and reasonable in excess of $15,000.
COUNT IV
LOSS OF CONSORTIUM
COMES NOW the Plaintiff, Mr. William R. McReynolds, by and through his undersigned attorney and for Count III of his Petition for Loss of Consortium states as follows:
21. The Plaintiff reincorporates by reference paragraphs 1-20 as fully set forth herein.
22. Plaintiff was married to Dr. Dixie Cranmer McReynolds, prior to and during October 8, 1992, and is still married to her.
23. The Plaintiff has suffered a loss of consortium and services from his wife, Dr. Dixie Cranmer McReynolds, due to the negligent acts of the defendants. Said loss of consortium claims include companionship, marital services, home responsibilities, home chores, and sharing of financial and person responsibilities.
24. Plaintiff sustained damage as a direct result of injury to his wife.WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request damages against the Defendants in the amount that is fair, just and resonable in excess of $15,000.
COUNT V
PUNITIVE DAMAGES
COME NOW the Plaintiffs, Dr. Dixie Cranmer McReynolds and Mr. William R. McReynolds, by and through their undersigned attorney and for Count IV of Their Petition for Damages allege and claim punitive damages against the defendants as follows:
25. The Plaintiffs reincorporate by reference all paragraphs 1-24 as if fully set forth herein.
26. As a direct result of the intentional and negligent acts of the Defendants herein, Defendants acts were made with malice and in total disregard of the rights of the Plaintiff heriein with the intent to injure her.
27. As a direct result of the acts of the Defendants, Plaintiff sustained injury and incurred damages which Defendants should pay an amount to deter Defendants and punish them for their intentional acts committed on the Plaintiff.
WHEREFORE, for the above reasons Plaintiffs hereby request exemplary damage against the Defendants in a sum that would be fair to the Plaintffs and deter them from future similar acts.
Dated: January __, 1997________________________________
JAMES M. LOVE
Oklahoma Law License # 10580
