Guess who seems to have a problem with it, compliance, that is? It would be Ms. Linda Zoeller. What is the problem you ask? She is having problems “complying” with a court Order issued several months ago. (I know, stop laughing.) Of course she is having trouble. I know, I know, they don’t understand “comply” “compliance” or any other form of “following the rules”. Yes, I know, Zoeller is the one who files the thousands of falsified documents for the fake owners and yes, I know she is the “keeper of the rubber stamps” (rubber stamp signatures of “owner dentists”), so of course she is not going to be forthcoming in anything she does. Non of these folks are, they believe to their core laws, rules, standards and guidelines do not apply to any of them! And frankly, from what I’ve seen so far, they are right; no one makes them follow any rules.
Well, apparently the folks in Nashville are still trying to hide evidence, and Zoeller is assisting in that endeavor. (Stop it! I know you are in tears laughing… lol). Zoeller issued an affidavit a few days ago and the attorneys, nor the judge can figure out if she (Zoeller) is saying she is finally in compliance with the court’s Order or not in compliance. Just from my experience, I’m going with “not”.
Amazingly Zoeller is having problems producing the performance reviews and and evidence on how they disciplined the dentists who didn’t meet the financial goals of the company. I can’t imagine why they would want to hide that information! (sarcasm) You know they actually sent some files with blank performance review sheets in them! I take that as a big ole F you!
If I were any of the dentists on trial, I would certainly want them shown to the court. But I guess before that, those dentists have got to stop with the bullshit singing the corporate song and start worrying about saving their own asses. Have the dentists not realized yet, these attorneys do NOT have their best interest at heart!
Zoeller is one old heifer I’d love to see on the stand and under oath, with a special perjury officer standing beside her. Or, maybe one of those bark collars that shocks her ass every time she lies. Oooo…what about a lie detector projected on a screen for the jury to see as she is asked questions. Gosh, I’d buy a ticket for a performance like that, wouldn’t you? Yeah, I know we can’t do that, but it sure would be fun. One this is certain, she would likely blow a lie detector machine in about the first 3 minutes or less.
Anyway, they have been trying to hide this intel for almost a year,(ok, since the beginning of time) still no one can figure out if Zoeller is saying she has produced them all or not. I have a pretty good idea, don’t you?
Zoeller basically says she is over worked and they are short handed and in the past year hasn’t had time to pull any files. LMAO! Zoeller says she is working 80 hours a week. Well, damnit, I’m close enough to check that out. Just saying…
Anyway, the judge plans on issuing an “adverse inference” sanction and is going to require Zoeller to be at the hearing to answer some questions. Ooo, I might have to make this one.
The judge says, “…clearly, my view, based on in large part Miss Zoeller’s affidavit about the efforts or lack of efforts that were made, is that an adverse inference is appropriate here.”
“… I do think that the failure to produce was willful.”
“…it is very clear from Miss Zoeller’s affidavit that they didn’t take seriously this, the obligation to preserve these records, to obtain and preserve these records during the course of the litigation.”
I wonder if FORBA/CSHM’s attorney’s fill Zoeller in on things like this or will she be reading about it for the first time right here. I would also bet ole Sawyer had a huge hand in this matter as well! Remember, Sheila Sawyer, from Waller Lansden law group? She all but had her cheerleader’s outfit on and shake her pompoms rooting for these creeps last time I saw her in a court room in Nashville.
Not surprisingly, the defendant’s attorney wants the judge to issue “monetary” sanctions for non-compliance of the company and Zoeller. Of course, they do! It’s more of their “pay to play” operations and frankly, so far it’s always worked. Just attach it to the millions of dollars they still owe for past wrong doings. No big deal.
Moving on and back to the dentists.
I wish they would personally show up at these hearings and just see what is happening for themselves. These attorney’s are supposed to be protecting the dentists interests — that is who they are obligated to protect, but it sure looks and sounds like the lawyers are protecting the insurance company and the past and current executives of Small Smiles instead.
At these hearings the dentists are not only being thrown under the bus, they are being thrown under a YUKE. (the kool aide seems to cause permanent brain damage!)
If these dentists lose, and I highly suspect they will, especially on these fraud charges, they risk their license and their future insurability. In addition, their personal assets are at risk, the insurance is not likely to cover them on the fraud. Any thought of discharging the monetary award they owe the patients can’t be discharged in bankruptcy. So it will be with them for evermore. Remember what happened to O.J? Think about it, it’s in the insurance company’s best interest to go to trial, isn’t it? But for the dentist, it’s in his/her best interest to settle, make your insurance company pay up and you go back to your life. Just saying…
Here is the real kicker at the hearing.
These slimy ass attorney’s want to blame the children.
WHAT!? Yes, they want to be able to argue to the jury that at a certain age, somewhere around 4 years old the children could have been partially to blame (comparative fault) for the actions of these dentists and somehow the corporate executives, I suppose. (page 31 of the transcript)
AT this point the judge is clearly stunned. Here is what she had to say:
“Are the defendants really going to try to blame the kids? Is that going to be your strategy at trial?”
“It seems that you guys just like to fight.”
“If you guys think that some jury is going to blame the kids for the treatment that they got from these dentists, I don’t know what you are smoking.”
The attorney tried to argue his point about using “comparative fault”, actually suggested it might be used in the situation of the children not getting counseling.
The Judge: “ For example, that they aren’t getting counseling. Is what you’re suggesting, something like that?”
Mr. First: “It could be that”
The Judge, “That these 6 and 7 year olds ought to set up appointment with a psychologist, for them too?”
Mr. First: “Yes”
The Judge: “—to get treatment because they are still suffering from?”
This is just how these attorney’s think, can you believe it! I too, ask, what the hell are they smoking!! Wonder if they know how ludicrous this sounds? I wonder if attorney’s who represent the bad guys, especially in corporate wrongdoings such as the Small Smiles Dental Center malpractice cases ever read the transcripts of hearings and such. I say this because surely if they did they would be more cautious and try to refrain from sounding like idiots.
Anyone want to guess whose attorney was stupid enough to suggest these 4 year old children could be responsible for the malpractice or not making appointments for counseling to help them deal with the nightmares they suffer because of the trauma?
Yep, it was the attorney representing ‘Old FORBA” and Michael DeRose, Eddie DeRose, Dan DeRose, Adolph Padula, William Mueller, and Michael Roump – Dennis First, Esq. How the folks of Pueblo, Colorado worship these creeps is beyond me.
We can only hope their stupidity continues and I pray they try this at trial, in front of the jury.
Ching, Ching, Ching, Ching, Ching, Ching, … I heard the sound of a slot machine paying out a whole hell of a lot of money!
Transcript of Hearing on Summary Judgment Motion - Small Smiles Dental NY 08-14-2013