These public records appear in the LANE Co. CIRCUIT COURT case # 160507161
REPRINTED from court records:
COMES NOW defendant Dr. Gilday and requests oral argument on the following motion. Official court reporting services are not required. Defendant estimates 10 minutes will be required for oral argument.
            Pursuant to ORCP 47A, defendant Dr. Gilday, moves for summary judgment dismissing all claims asserted against him. This motion is based on the Memorandum in Support of Dr. Gildays Motion for Summary Judgment and the Affidavit of Dr. Damion Gilday.                  Dated this 2I day of June, 2005.        SCHWABE, WILLIAMSON & WYATT, P.C.
_________________________________
REPRINTED from court records:
I, Damion Gilday, DMD, being first duly sworn on oath, do hereby depose and say:
1.         During at all times I treated plaintiff, I was a dentist licensed to practice dentistry in the State of Oregon
2.         Based upon my experience and training as a doctor I am familiar with the degree of care, skill and diligence practiced by ordinarily careful, prudent and skillful dentists under the same or similar circumstances as that identified by the plaintiff in his complaint in this or similar community.
In my opinion, the care I provided to plaintiff at all times met or exceeded the skill, care and diligence used by ordinarily careful dentists in the same or similar circumstances and in this or similar community.
Furthermore, I am of the opinion on a reasonable degree of medical probability that the care I provided to the plaintiff caused no harm and no injury as alleged in his complaint.        Dated 17th of June, 2005
 
[ LIAR! (my opinion) Can you believe this CRAP?  Not unlike a murder claiming self defense,
Where's HIS Expert Witnesses, Where are THEIR Affidavits? ]

___________________________________________
REPRINTED from court records:
POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
                        A.        Factual Background.
            The underlying action is premised upon dental malpractice. Specifically, the plaintiff has alleged that Dr. Gilday, and other dentists in his office, negligently provided dental care to the plaintiff. The plaintiff has alleged negligence in a variety of particulars.1 This matter is ripe for summary judgment based upon the following points and authorities.
                        B.         Summary judgment is appropriate.
            Summary judgment is "designed to cut off litigation * * * where it appears that one of the parties has no case." Tiedemann v. Radiation Therapy Consultants, 299 Or 238, 245, 701 P2d  440 (1985). Summary judgment should be granted when there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and when the party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Christensen v.
1 In plaintiffs fourth claim for relief he has alleged a "Breach of duty of attention and care" which should be broadly read as an in-artfully pled negligence claim.
Murphy, 296 Or 610, 613, 678 P2d 1210 (1984); ORCP 47C. The party moving for summary judgment has the burden of showing that there is no             genuine issue of material fact that the party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Seeborg v.General Motors Corporation, 284 Or 695, 699, 588 P2d 1100 (1978). Once the moving party has
satisfied the initial burden, the party opposing the summary judgment has the obligation to produce evidence sufficient to demonstrate the existence of one or more genuine issues of fact. Pelege v. Chrysler, 278 Or 223, 227 n.2, 563 P2d 701 (1977). The non-moving party may not rest on the allegations in his pleadings. ORCP 47D.
It is not enough for there to be a metaphysical doubt as to a question of fact. In order to satisfy QRCP 47, the party opposing the summary judgment motion must come forward with sufficient evidence to satisfy "an objectively reasonable jurors" ability to find for the non- moving party. "Where the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving party, there is no genuine issue for trial." Jones v. General Motors Corp., 139 Or App 244, 253, 911 P2d 1243 (1996) affd, 325 Or 404 (1966) (quoting Matsushita Elec. md. Co. v. Zenith Radio, 457 US 574, 586-87, 106 S ct 1348, 89 LEd 2d 538 (1986)).      C. The conduct of Dr. Damion Gilday met the relevant standard of care. Plaintiffs claim is for dental negligence. For a plaintiff to establish prima-facie case of medical negligence against a dentist or physician, plaintiff must prove the existence of the standard of care, a violation of the standard and that the violation caused some injury. See ORS  677.095 (check might be wrong statute.) State v. St. Pierre, 224 Or 395, 402, 356 P2d 432 (1960).
Because the practice of dentistry involves technical matters beyond the scope of  knowledge of laymen, the plaintiff must establish a prima facie case through introduction of competent and qualified dental expert testimony. Mayor v. Dowsett, 240 Or 196, 215, 400 P2d 234 (1965). When the sufficiency of a claim asserted by the plaintiff is challenged by defendants motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff may not reset upon the allegations of the complaint, but rather must come forward with sufficient evidence to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact. ORCP 47D. In the context of professional negligence litigation, summary
judgment has been approved by the Supreme Court. Tiedemann v. Radiation Therapy Consultants. P.C., 299 Or 238, 245-49, 701 P2d 440 (1985).
 In this case, Dr. Gilday has introduced his own affidavit establishing that the standard of care has been met. This affidavit constitutes expert testimony and establishes that Dr. Gildays acts as well as those other individuals that treated plaintiff were consistent with the degree of care, skill and diligence used by ordinarily careful dentists in the same or similar circumstances
in this or a similar community. Defendant Gilday has thus discharged his burden of proving that no genuine issue of material fact exists. Tiedemann v. Radiation Therapy Consultants. P.C., 299 Or 238, 245-49, 701 P2d 440 (1985) (uncontroverted expert testimony is sufficient to indicated no factual issue exists).
REPRINTED from court records:
COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT  OF PLAINTIFF  AGAINST DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF  DAMION GILDAY, DMD
17.2/ Code Pleading, FRCP12(6)(6) Pro se complaints are held to a less strict standard than those drafted by a lawyer 857F2d559, 563
I, Jeff Jones, being first duly sworn on oath, do hereby depose and say:
1.         This case was transferred from small claims court Case # 700504234.
2.         I reaffirm all allegations I made in my Complaint.
3.         This affidavit is accompanied with my MEMORANDUM with POINTS & AUTHORITIES, which further details information not contained here. This affidavit is further accompanied with my REPLY AGAINST DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF DAMION GILDAY, DMD. This affidavit is further accompanied with nearly 60 pages of exhibits of evidence.
4.         I have the evidence and the broken drill is still in my gum, and a brand new x-ray to prove it.
5.         Defendant admitted his mistake and forgave a $600 balance plus the defendant paid out some money directly to Endodonist Michael Dryden DDS PC, that is an admission of guilt.  Furthermore, Defendant basically admits causing injury in claims 1 & 4 in his Answer to Complaint.
6.         I object to Defendant Gildays Affidavit paragraphs 3 & 4. Defendants Affidavit paragraph 4, states he caused no harm or injury, in my opinion, hes a liar. Let me drill his tooth and break a bit off in his jaw.
7.         Defendant has not provided any opposing evidence as require by law. He did not prove that no genuine material fact exists.
8.         I have two expert witnesses who have already written damaging evidence against Damion Gilday. (1) In his ANSWER to my Complaint, Gilday himself admits to count one and count four. (2) His best friend Larry Michael Over DMD, MSD, whom I paid more than $300 to, for his "EXPERT OPINION", identifies the damage Gilday had done and then provides a written treatment plan, indicating the costs to repair Gildays work would far exceed $3,000.  I would subpoena him and  treat him as a hostile witness.
9.         In fact, the mere fact that I have been treated by all of these: South Lane Medical Group, Michael Dryden, DDS, Larry Michael Over DMD, Daniel Harper DMD, Gerald Harper DDS, Darleen Mitchell massage therapist, to correct damages done by the Defendant, and that these doctors chart notes reflect the affected teeth, are in and of themselves, material evidence and unwitting expert testimony in my behalf.
10.        Defendant pretends to be a expert witness unto himself. Can a murder be his own expert witness to say it was self defense?  Defendant affidavit is contrary to his admissions in his Answer to the Complaint.
11.        If in fact it is common practice for dentists to break drills off in the gum after drilling past the root, if it is common practice to not use endodontists, if it is common practice to abandon your patients, if it is common practice to screw up a patients bite then refuse to fix it, then why has this defendant not proved that, by presenting the affidavits of several local dentists admitting to having done those very things?
12.        Equal protection under the law. If rule 47 requires expert testimony from me, then it should demand the same from the defendant and that means other dentists who have committed the same injuries identified here, to other patients. 
13.        That as a result of careless and negligent acts on the part of the defendant in performing the said dental procedure, the defendant having drilled through a gold crown,  not only broke a drill bit or file, off in the fourth root of a molar, known as tooth #14, but drill beyond the root deep into the bone. This broken tool remains in my jaw today, it is proof positive that the defendant drilled thru the root and beyond into the bone. That goes beyond a "root canal" and was not authorized nor met the standard of care.  The tooth was eventually removed and yet the extraction could not retrieve the drill file. This is evidence of negligence, defendant did not stay inside the tooth itself. That caused multiple infections, weeks of intense pain and numerous other doctor bills. Defendant admitted his mistake and forgave a $600 balance plus paid out money to Endodonist Michael Dryden DDS PC. Furthermore in the Defendants Answer to the complaint, he admits material facts to the court. Informed consent was never discussed before the procedure. Defendant refused to correct or treat the post-operative complications he created, and refused to see Plaintiff as a patient ever again. Such refusal is not discretionary, but is subject to the standards of the profession. If this were not true, no citizen would become a dental patient. Plaintiff relies on the doctrine of  "Res Ipsa Loquitur". Defendant is vicarious liable for the negligent acts of his agents and employees under the usual rules of agency law. That as a result of careless and negligent acts on the part of the defendant and/or his agents and employees in performing the said dental procedure, this caused infections, TMJ, neck strains, chewing difficulties, sleeping difficulties, many weeks of intense jaw and muscle pain, loss of enjoyment of life and numerous other doctor bills. Creating extreme hardships on plaintiff, resulting in the ultimate loss of 12 upper teeth. Dr. White had falsified the record of 11/6/03 to cover her mistake.  Other obvious omissions are noticed in the chart notes by defendant Gilday & Dr. Webster. Defendant refused to correct his mistakes and stated that plaintiff was no longer welcome as a patient in his office. Plaintiff lost all 12 upper teeth. Defendant committed an abandonment of a patient, when he refused to treat the problems he and his staff created.  Thus, during the period of the defendants absence, the plaintiff was deprived of medical care.
14.        It is not practical to include evidence with-in this document, so Attached to this affidavit is nearly 60 pages of exhibits of evidence including photos and x-rays which will remain in the files of this case. Preserved for the court of appeals.
15.        I swear under oath that the exhibits of evidence is true and accurate and defense has copies of same.
16.        A total escape of justice for Gilday due to rule 47 should not occur, where the case originated in a simple small claims case where no rule 47 exists, and where it was the defendant who demanded the case be moved to a jury trial.  So give him what he asked for, a jury trial. 
17.        Rule 47 is not a law and cannot supplant laws, Rule 47 encourages vigilantism.
18.        res ipsa loquitur [Latin, the thing speaks for itself] A doctrine or rule of evidence in tort law that permits an inference or presumption that a defendant was negligent in an accident injuring the plaintiff on the basis of circumstantial evidence if the accident was of a kind that does not ordinarily occur in the absence of negligence (a plaintiff who establishes the elements of res ipsa loquitur can withstand a motion for summary judgment and reach the jury without direct proof of negligence - Cox v. May Dept. Store Co., 903 P.2d 1119 (1995)) Maurice FIEUX v. CARDIOVASCULAR & THORACIC CLINIC 159 Or. App. 637, 978 P.2d 429 Patient was not required to present expert medical testimony to establish the elements for  res ipsa loquitur doctrine
19.        Rule 47 is in violation of the US CONSTITUTION ; Amendment I, Amendment VII, Amendment IX, Amendment X, Article XIV.  No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.  Declaration of Independence, written by Thomas Jefferson: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
20.        If  I have attempted to present evidence with the complaint itself, the complaint would have been thrown out on a technicality.  The Complaint is for facts, not evidence.  However, the defense has asked for 10 minutes of oral arguments. I have countered that with a request for 40 minutes of face to face meeting with the judge, with a court reporter, whereby I can present the physical evidence including physical models of my teeth, x-rays, photos, chart notes, doctors opinions, treatment plans, bills and nearly 60 pages of documents.
21.        It must be said that I made my own First Request for Production from the Defendant, They refused every request. The requests were nearly identical to the questions they had of me. This is yet, in my opinion, another cowardly move on their part, and the judge should compel their production.
Gilday refuses to produce the same request for production he asked of me. This is because the defense is confident that rule 47 will be enacted prior to the court compelling them to answer the request for production or being held in contempt.
22.        It was Gilday who first asked for a Jury trail, when he kicked the case out of small claims court. This court should ignore rule 47 challenges because in my opinion, Gildays  demand for a jury trail supercedes his cowardly attempt in using rule 47.
23.        The defense has not refuted or presented any evidence to disprove my claim, in fact they admitted to injuring me. They state that my complaint is "RIPE" but they do not prove it, instead in my opinion, the cowards hide behind rule 47. What does this say for their 7 years of schooling, afraid of being whipped by some mentally challenged person with no college degree?.
24.        On page 3 line 12 Gilday is acting as his own expert witness.  In my opinion, accepting Gildays affidavit in his motion for summary judgment,  is akin to accepting a affidavit from Hitler saying that he is the Christ.
25.        OREGON BOARD of DENTISTRY and the LANE COUNTY DENTAL SOCIETY would not provide any names of dentists who have appeared as witnesses anywhere at any time, and refused to help locate an "expert witness", saying "thats not what we do".
26.        I contacted many dentists, they all declined me, regardless that ANY JUROR CAN SEE AND HEAR WITH THEIR OWN EYES, or 90 out of 100 ordinary people, the errors made on me.
27.     
28.        Checking 2003 tax records, I found Gilday owns $2. 6 million  worth of residential real estate, not counting his 3 dental offices.  And he wanted to deprive me of $5,000 of the $8,000 he made off my family, when this matter was originally filed in small claims court!  I am out-of-pocket  more than $15,000 because of this guy, that is  MY WHOLE YEARS INCOME!  (from SSD), in my opinion, that is immoral.     Plus, I am entitled to sue for mental anguish, I have not, he should count his blessings.
29.        I contacted many attorneys, non were interested NOT because the case lacked MERIT, but because of the "good-o-boy" wall of silence, where no brother will testify against another, utilizing rule 47 to immunize each other.  I have phone recordings of lawyers are saying it is nearly impossible to sue a dentist because of this. These lawyers indicate that if an expert witness were found, he would come "from out of state", and would then be challenged on his knowledge of  "local" procedures, yet Id owe him $7,000 or more for his testimony, whether it helps or not.
30.        Just to be certain I include a "material fact",  I embed a photo of the "Treatment Plan" from Larry Michael Over DMD, MSD, into this affidavit.
31.        Just to be certain I include another "material fact",  I embed a photo of  chart notes from Gerald Harper DDS, into this affidavit.
Of course I will appeal if I lose.
____________________________
 
REPRINTED from court records:
PLAINTIFF  MEMORANDUM AGAINST DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR  SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF  DAMION GILDAY, DMD
17.2/ Code Pleading, FRCP12(6)(6) Pro se complaints are held to a less strict standard than those drafted by a lawyer 857F2d559, 563
POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
A. Factual Background
17.2/ Code Pleading, FRCP12(6)(6) Pro se complaints are held to a less strict standard than those drafted by a lawyer 857F2d559, 563
Defendants Memorandum state plaintiff 4th claim should be broadly read as an in-artfully pled negligence claim. I disagree. That claim was fashioned after 21 COA1, in Causes of Action (Oct. 2004) . It states: A dentist is held to the same standard of care as a physician or surgeon on the question of abandonment of a patient.  Domurad v. Hill, 414 Mass 1001, 605 NE 2d 858 (1993) "Abandonment " of a patient involves unwarranted termination of professional relationship.  Glenn v. Carlstrom, 556 NW2d 800 (Iowa 1996)
Defendants affidavit is contrary to his admissions in his Answer to the Complaint.
The court in Suzan Due-Donohue v. Dwight Johnson MD 191Or.App.98, claimed that the only material facts raised were submitted by Plaintiff Pro-Se.  This case is different in that the Defendant Gilday admitted in his ANSWER to material facts, also  His best friend Michael Over DMD, MSD, whom I paid more than $300 to, for his "EXPERT OPINION", identifies the damage Gilday had done and then provides a written treatment plan, indicating the costs to repair Gildays work. I would subpoena him and  treat him as a hostile witness.
SISTERS of ST. Joseph of PEACE, HEALTH, and HOSPITAL SERVICES dba Sacred Heart General Hospital v. William B.WYLLIE  120 OR. App.474, 852 P.2d 941 A genuine issue of material fact precluded summary judgment for the hospital.  Allegations in patient affidavit did not render entire affidavit inadequate. In Gildays ANSWER to my Complaint, he signed an affidavit admitting to material facts, he is a practicing dentist and therefore I have met my burden according to rule 47. The jury must now hear the case.
res ipsa loquitur [Latin, the thing speaks for itself]
A doctrine or rule of evidence in tort law that permits an inference or presumption that a defendant was negligent in an accident injuring the plaintiff on the basis of circumstantial evidence if the accident was of a kind that does not ordinarily occur in the absence of negligence (a plaintiff who establishes the elements of res ipsa loquitur can withstand a motion for summary judgment and reach the jury without direct proof of negligence - Cox v. May Dept. Store Co., 903 P.2d 1119 (1995))
The principle of res ipsa loquitur was first put forth in the Byrne v. Boadle case of 1863. A barrel of flour fell from D's warehouse injuring P, a passer-by. No explanation could be given by D for the incident and P was in no position to prove a breach of duty by D. The court therefore placed the burden of proof on D, who had to show that he had not broken his duty of care. He was unable to do this and P therefore succeeded in his action. The present case upon the evidence comes to this, a man is passing in front of the premises of a dealer in flour, and there falls down upon him a barrel of flour. I think it apparent that the barrel was in the custody of the defendant who occupied the premises, and who is responsible for the acts of his servants who had the control of it; and in my opinion the fact of its falling is prima facie evidence of negligence, and the plaintiff who was injured by it is not bound to show that it could not fall without negligence, but if there are any facts inconsistent with negligence it is for the defendant to prove them (Chief Baron Pollock).
Maurice FIEUX v. CARDIOVASCULAR & THORACIC CLINIC 159 Or. App. 637, 978 P.2d 429
Patient was not required to present expert medical testimony to establish the elements for  res ipsa loquitur doctrine, and attribution of negligence to surgeon or nurses was issue for the jury. [8] Negligence  272k1617I "plaintiff does not have to eliminate other possible causes, nor is he required to specify the particular manner in which defendant was negligent".  [13] Health 198Hk825 surgeon admitted he was responsible for searching and thus, jury could infer that it was more probable than not caused the necessitating a second surgery For simplicity, our references to the surgeon also include his practice.
 [1] Res ipsa loquitur is a rule of evidence whereby circumstantial evidence may be used to prove ultimate facts. McKee Electric Co. v. Carson Oil Co., 301 Or. 339, 348, 723 P.2d 288 (1986). More specifically, it allows **432 the jury to infer both negligence and causation, even in medical malpractice actions, if " the accident which occurred * * * is of a kind which more probably than not would not have occurred in the absence of negligence on the part of the defendant. " Id. at 353, 723 P.2d 288 (quoting Watzig v. Tobin, 292 Or. 645, 649, 642 P.2d 651 (1982)).
 [2][3][4] Whether res ipsa loquitur applies is a matter of law to be determined by the court. Cummins v. City of West Linn, 21 Or.App. 643, 651, 536 P.2d 455 (1975). A plaintiff must establish the fundamental elements of the doctrine before an inference of negligence or causation will be permitted, namely, that there is an injury, that the injury "is of a kind which ordinarily does not occur in the absence of someones negligence," and that the negligence that caused the event was more probably than not attributable to a particular defendant or defendants. Umpqua Aquaculture, Inc. v. Rons Welding, 111 Or.App. 220, 223-24, 826 P.2d 31 (1992) (quoting Barrett v. Emanuel Hospital, 64 Or.App. 635, 638, 669 P.2d *641 835, rev, den. 296 Or. 237, 675 P.2d 491 (1983)). In reviewing an order for a directed verdict, we view the evidence and all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to plaintiff to determine whether plaintiff has presented sufficient evidence on those elements to submit the matter to a jury. Turnbow v. K.E. Enterprises, Inc., 155 Or.App. 59, 65, 962 P.2d 764 (1998). Defendants argue that the stipulated facts do not establish the elements necessary to permit the inference of negligence allowed under res ipsa loquitur. First, they argue that plaintiffs proposed testimony is insufficient to prove his damages. Defendants also argue that expert medical testimony is required to establish the standard of care from which a jury may infer that it is more probable than not (I) that the injury would not have occurred without someone violating that standard of care and (2) that defendants were negligent. Plaintiff maintains that the evidence he presented was competent to establish his injury and the standard of care from which defendants negligence could be inferred. We agree with plaintiff.   [5][6][[7] As to the first element of injury and damages, Oregon recognizes that a plaintiff who suffers a physical impact or injury is entitled to claim mental anguish damages. Harris v. Kissling, 80 Or.App. 5, 8-9, 721 P,2d 838 (1986). Plaintiff was not required to present expert medical testimony to establish that he was injured by having the clamp left in his chest. It is within a jurys competence to conclude that a second surgery, complete with the physical impact necessary to complete the surgery and all the risks associated with it, constitutes an injury. Skeeters v. Skeeters, 237 Or. 204, 214, 389 P.2d 313 (1964). Plaintiff did not request damages for physical pain and suffering; thus, he is not obligated to put on expert testimony to prove them. In addition, injured plaintiffs are entitled to claim damages for mental anguish, which plaintiffs may establish through their own or other lay testimony. [FN3] Thus, the trial courts order for directed verdicts may not be affirmed on the ground that plaintiff would offer no expert testimony to prove injury and damages.
*642 Regarding the inference of negligence, plaintiff argues that the surgeon, nurses, and hospital owed him a duty not to leave the serrefine clamp in his chest after surgery. Such a general statement may assert the obvious, but it does not end our analysis. " Where risks are inherent in an operation and an injury of a type which is rare does occur, the doctrine [of res ipsa loquitur] should not be applicable unless it can be said  that the injury was due to someones negligence. Jeffries v. Murdock, 74 Or.App. 38, 44-45, 701 P.2d 451, rev. den. 299 Or. 584, 704 P.2d 513 (1985) (quoting Siverson v. Weber, 57 Cal.2d 834, 835, 22 Cal.Rptr. 337, 372 P.2d 97 (1962)). Plaintiffs burden here is to present enough evidence for a jury to "reasonably find * * * that it is more probable than not that the [injury] * * * would not normally occur in the absence of negligence * * "." Watzig, 292 Or. at 651, 642 P.2d 651.
Every adult has had medical or dental work performed on them most of their lives.  They know what is reasonable and whats not. They are not babies and dont need an "expert witness" to tell them what to think, or to spell out the obvious.
**433 [8] Providing a rational basis from which to infer negligence does not always require expert testimony in medical malpractice cases. The Supreme Court has noted: Expert testimony is an indispensable part of plaintiffs case only when the average juror cannot be expected to understand the issues without that kind of assistance. It is not required simply because the circumstances are outside the average jurors experience if the other evidence is such as to present the issue in terms which the jury can be expected to understand. McKee, 301 Or. at 350, 723 P.2d 288 (quoting Hall v. State, 290 Or. 19, 27, 619 P.2d 256 (1980) (emphasis added)). Though we have stated that in the great majority of [medical malpractice] cases expert testimony is required," we nevertheless believe that it is within the capability of a jury to ascertain that a clamp is not normally left inside a patient unless someone was negligent. Jeffries, 74 Or.App. at 43, 701 P.2d 451; see also Piehl v. The Dalles General Hospital, 280 Or. 613, 618-19, 571 P.2d 149 (1977) (a jury could assess whether leaving a laparotomy sponge in a patient was negligent); Mayor v. Dowsett, 240 Or. 196, 215, 400 P.2d 234 (1965) (the "most obvious illustration of the use of the doctrine [of res ipsa loquitur] in medical malpractice cases is, of course, where a foreign object, such as a sponge or a needle, is left in the patients interior at the time of surgery").   [a needle and a broken drill file are synonymous with each other, The drill bit/file Gilday broke, is still in my gum today]
*643 Defendants efforts to distinguish the serrefine clamp from other applications of res ipsa loquitur where objects were left in patients after surgery are not persuasive. Neither is the argument that the instrument could have been left without negligence.  Denny v. Warren, 239 Or. 401, 405, 398 P.2d 123 (1964). Plaintiff does not have to eliminate other possible causes, nor is he required to specify the particular manner in which defendant was negligent. Cumin ins, 21 Or.App. at 649, 536 P.2d 455.
 [13] We think it obvious that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies to the surgeon. The surgeon admitted in his deposition that he was responsible for searching plaintiffs *645 body cavity to remove instruments, needles, and sponges. Given this evidence of direct responsibility, an inference can easily be drawn that it is more probable than not that his failure to search carefully caused the clamp to remain behind plaintiffs heart, requiring a second surgery for removal. See Piehl, 280 Or. at 618-19, 571 P.2d 149 (where a "jury of laymen could find that even a summary poking around for all the sponges which could be seen or felt would, in the exercise of ordinary care," reveal the laparotomy sponge in patients abdomen); Nicholson v. Sisters of Charity, 255 Or. 251, 253, 463 P.2d 861 (1970) (where regardless of who had the duty to take care of and account for the instruments, the doctors had exclusive actual control of everything that went in and came out of the body cavity and could be directly liable).
Surgeon argues that Oregon courts have rejected the "Captain of the Ship" doctrine and that we therefore cannot presume that he is responsible for the acts of other hospital employees assisting him. Holger v. Irish, 316 Or. 402, 851 P.2d 1122 (1993). However, Holger rejected only the notion that a doctor could be held either directly liable or liable on a respondeat superior theory where there was (1) no evidence of the doctors personal responsibility for the instrumentality causing the injury and (2) no evidence of the doctors supervision or control over the nurses operation of the instrumentality. Id. at 412-13, 851 P.2d 1122; see also May v. Broun, 261 Or. 28, 40, 492 P.2d 776 (1972). Because we have evidence of the surgeons probable direct negligence, we reverse the directed verdict in favor of the surgeon and remand.
 [14] Negligence can also be inferred against the nurses under the res ipsa loquitur doctrine. As discussed earlier, the nurses, as employees of the hospital, owed a duty to plaintiff not to leave metal instruments in his chest cavity after surgery. The surgeons deposition, which indicated the nurses were responsible for accounting for instruments "in general terms," connects the nurses to the clamp. While the hospital had no official policy establishing specific procedures that the nurses were required to take, such a policy is not necessary
LISA MACDONALD v. THOMAS COTTLE  DDS 133 OR.APP. 35, 889 P.2d 1320  Court committed reversible error in preventing plaintiff from introducing into evidence defendants initial response to request for admissions even though that response was subsequently amended. Reversed and remanded.
704, 695 P.2d 1371 (1985). Where a motion for summary judgment is supported only by an expert witnesss uncontradicted opinion, the motion will be denied; the jury is free to reject the experts conclusions because the weight of the opinion of an expert witness is a matter particularly within the province of the jury. May v. Josephine Memorial Hospital, 70 Or. App. 620, 690 P.2d 1118 (1984), cert. denied, 298 Or. 704, 695 P.2d 1371 (1985).
Brannon v. Wood, 251 Or. 349, 444 P.2d 558 (Or., Aug 23, 1968) Application of doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is limited to establishment of particular acts of negligence alleged.
May v. Broun, 261 Or. 28, 492 P.2d 776 (Or., Jan 19, 1972)
Thorn v. Corwin, 260 Or. 23, 488 P.2d 413 (Or., Sep 10, 1971) only specific acts of negligence are charged, res ipsa loquitur can be used only to establish particular acts alleged.
Dacus v. Miller, 257 Or. 337, 479 P.2d 229 (Or., Jan 13, 1971) action for alleged malpractice which resulted in admitted injury to facial nerve of patient as a result of operation. 198Hk827 of radical mastoidectomy revision injury to facial nerve would not ordinarily occur, there was sufficient evidence to authorize submission of res ipsa loquitur instruction in action for alleged malpractice which resulted in admitted injury to facial nerve of patient as a result of...
Hall v. State, 619 P.2d 256 Or., 1980 Although it is part of plaintiffs burden in a negligence case to persuade trier of fact that defendant acted unreasonably, plaintiff is not ordinarily required, in order to make a prima facie case, to negate possibility that there were special circumstances which made defendants conduct reasonable. It is up to defendant to produce evidence to rebut a permissible inference of negligence by showing that there were good reasons why it did not in fact take a precaution that, according to plaintiffs proof, it might reasonably have taken.
James v. Carnation Co., 562 P.2d 1192 Or.,1977 Construction of statutory negligence shifts burden of persuasion and requires defendants to overcome issue by proving they were acting as reasonable and prudent persons under the circumstances.
Lehr v. Gresham Berry Growers, 372 P.2d 488 Or.,1962 It is not necessary to plaintiffs recovery that he establish each act of negligence alleged in complaint, and it is sufficient if any one act of negligence as alleged is proven as proximate cause.
Robinson v. Lambs Wilsonville Thriftway, 332 Or. 453 Or.,2001 A genuine issue of fact is a triable issue of fact, and a moving party therefore must show that the uncontroverted factual posture of the case is such that the adverse party would not be entitled to a jury determination.  Summary judgment is appropriate if no objectively reasonable juror could return a verdict for the adverse party on the matter that is the subject of the motion for summary judgment. Rules Civ.Proc., Rule 47, subd. C.
Jones v. General Motors Corp., 939 P.2d 608 Or.,1997 Amendment to summary judgment rule, which provides that no genuine issue as to material fact exists if based upon record when viewed in manner most favorable to adverse party, no objectively reasonable juror could return verdict for adverse party on matter that is subject of motion, codified prior court decisions interpreting summary judgment rule, but otherwise effected no substantive change, and did not alter quantum of proof required to support
Gorge Leasing Co. v. Hanna, 653 P.2d 578 Or.App., 1982 In order to obtain a summary judgment, moving party must show that no genuine dispute exists as to any material fact and that the party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; moving party has the burden of proof, even as to issues that, if the case were tried, would require that the burden be placed on the party opposing the motion. Rules Civ.Proc., Rule 47, subd. C.
Van Osdol v. Knappton Corn., 755 P.2d 744  Or.App., 1988 Even if facts are undisputed, if inferences arising from them are susceptible to more than one reasonable conclusion, summary judgment should not be granted. Rules Civ.Proc., Rule 47, subd. C.
Henderson v. Hercules, Inc., 646 P.2d 658 Or.App., 1982 When evidence in support of motion for summary judgment demonstrates that there is an issue for jury, it is error to allow motion for summary judgment.
Mayor v. Dowsett, 240 Or. 196, 400 P.2d 234 (Or., Mar 17, 1965) ...Plaintiff was competent witness as to whether she had suffered loss of feeling.
Fieux v. Cardiovascular & Thoracic Clinic, P.C., 159 Or.App. 637, 978 P.2d 429 (Or.App., Apr 14, 1999) plaintiff who suffers a physical impact or injury is entitled to claim mental anguish damages.
Rule 47 is not a law and cannot supercede or circumvent the Constitution., it is in violation of the US CONSTITUTION.
Amendment I  - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment VII  - In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Amendment IX  - The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X  - The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Article XIV.   - Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Declaration of Independence, written by Thomas Jefferson in 1776, reads as follows:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
According to Barron's Law Dictionary:
Inalienable rights are fundamental rights, including the right to practice religion, freedom of speech, due process, and equal protection under the laws, that cannot be transferred to another nor surrendered except by the person possessing them.
According to Black's Law Dictionary:
Inalienable rights are rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights; e.g. rights of free speech, property ownership, freedom of religion, personal liberty, etc..
Phyllis MINISCE, Appellant, V. Robert W. THOMPSON and Robert W. Thompson, D.M.D., P.C., Respondents. 149 Or.App. 746, 945 P.2d 582,  C95-0662CV; CA A93944. Submitted June 26, 1997.
Patient brought malpractice action against dentist, asserting claims based on alleged malpractice by dentist in installing crowns and in performing root canal procedure. The Circuit Court, Washington County, Jon Lund, J., granted summary judgment based on statute of limitations with respect to both claims, and patient appealed. The Court of Appeals, Haselton, J., held that: (1) fact issue as to time at which patient discovered, or should have discovered, claim based on crown procedures precluded summary judgment, but (2) dentists $250 credit against patients bill after patient registered complaint regarding root canal was not advance payment tolling statute of limitations. Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded in part.
Plaintiff appeals, assigning error to the entry of summary judgment against her complaint for dental malpractice. The trial court concluded that both of plaintiffs claims, which pertained to separate dental procedures, were barred by the statute of limitations. We affirm on one claim, which concerns the performance of a root canal, and reverse on the other claim, which concerns the placement of two crowns. [FN 1]
The material facts are undisputed. Between May 1985 and December 1992, defendant Dr. Thompson [FN2] provided dental treatment to plaintiff. Two particular dental procedures are the focus of this appeal: (1) On October 3, 1990, defendant placed crowns on plaintiffs teeth 4 and 5; and (2) on September 3, 1992, defendant performed a root canal on plaintiffs tooth 20. In November 1992, two months after defendant performed the initial root canal on tooth 20, plaintiff went to see an endodontist, Dr. Bryant, because she was still experiencing pain. [1][2] We first consider the crowns claim. ORS 12.110(4) provides in part: "An action to recover damages for injuries to the person arising from any medical, surgical or dental treatment, omission or operation shall be commenced within two years from the date when the injury is first discovered or in the exercise of reasonable care should have been discovered." "[I]njur[y]" within the meaning of ORS 12.110(4) "consists of three elements: (1) harm; (2) causation; and (3) tortious conduct." Gaston v. Parsons, 318 Or. 247, 255, 864 P.2d 1319 (1994). Thus, under the discovery rule, "the statute of limitations begins to run when the plaintiff knows or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known facts which would make a reasonable person aware of a substantial possibility *751 that each of the three elements (harm, causation, and tortious conduct) exists." Id. at 256, 864 P.2d 1319. Plaintiff asserts that summary judgment against the crowns claim was erroneous, because "the only evidence in the record is that [plaintiff] was not made aware until September, 1993, that her problems were caused, in part, by the overcontoured crowns fitted by [defendant]." That evidence, plaintiff contends, creates a genuine issue of material fact under Gaston and precludes a matter-of-law determination that discovery occurred, or **585 should have occurred, at some point before September 1993. [3] Plaintiff is correct. In so holding, we emphasize that, in moving for summary judgment on the crowns claim, defendants submitted no affidavits, exhibits, or other evidentiary materials. [FNS] Rather, they relied solely on the alleged facial deficiency of the complaint--i.e., the absence of allegations demonstrating why plaintiff could not have brought her claim within two years of the placement of the crowns. In response to defendants motion, plaintiff submitted evidence, i.e., her own deposition testimony in which she stated that she did not discover her injury until she saw McMorine in September 1993. FN5. Defendants did submit an excerpt of plaintiffs deposition, describing plaintiffs root canal treatment with Bryant and the $250 credit. However, that evidence pertained solely to the timeliness of the root canal claim. [4] Plaintiffs evidentiary submission effectively amended her complaint to conform to that proof Hussey v. Huntsinger, 72 Or.App. 565, 569, 696 P.2d 580 (1985). That is, where the defendant attacks the sufficiency of the complaint via a motion for summary judgment, and the plaintiff offers evidence in response to that motion, which would justify an amended complaint, the complaint is to be deemed amended for the purposes of the summary judgment motion. Id. ("In this case plaintiff presented evidence * * * [which] would justify an amended complaint, and we treat the complaint as if it were amended.") Accord Finney v. Bransom,143 Or.App. 154, 164-65, 924 P.2d 319 (1996), rev allowed 324 Or. 513, 930 P.2d 853 (1997) (Hussey rule does not "require a trial court to allow a party to amend its pleadings to add a new claim based on a new legal *752 theory simply because that party produced evidence in the summary judgment hearing that supports the claim.") Gilday forgave a $600 balance on my account and paid out money to Michael Dryden DDS, because he admitted his error.
This document contains thoughts which are the opinions of the author, protected by the first amendment.
If this court refuses to see the evidence before ruling on the summary judgment it becomes complaisant in a cover-up to thwart justice.
According to defendants own words on page 2 line 3, burden of proof is on them, they have not presented one ounce of evidence to nullify mine. They only attempt to attack me, that is not evidence.
I can present the physical evidence including physical models of my teeth, x-rays, photos, chart notes, doctors opinions, treatment plans, bills and nearly 60 pages of documents. These are already in the hands of the defense as they requested them in First Request for Production. This evidence is now being submitted to the court with this document, in advance to any hearing.
This court, if it grants defendants summary judgment, the court will owe me at the very least full reimbursement for all court and legal expenses related to this and the small claims case plus my time and energy. This because the court is complicit and a co-conspirator of defrauding me.  There is no excuse for the court not to make the public aware of rule 47 in the papers it provides in the Small Claims packet.
Perhaps a collusion of birds of a feather sticking together, maybe thats why the courts have such distain for pro-se people, judges in general feel that the courts are only for the lawyers.
The injustice of rule 47 does not just hurt the Plaintiff. It encourages vigilantism, which  ultimately puts more people at risk of being hurt.
Paul at the Oregon Board of Dentistry said he could not provide any names of dentist who have appeared as witnesses anywhere at any time. 
I intend to subpoena  employees of  Oregon Board of Dentistry  to testify under oath, the standard of care, to which dentists must adhere.

As a federally protected person under the "Americans with Disabilities Act" , this court should assist me in these legal proceedings. I cannot find any legal help. The Free law Clinic does not do this type of law. No lawyer is willing to take the case, NOT because it lacks merit, but because of the collusion among the brotherhood of dentists. The staff at the courthouse and basement Law Library tell me theyre not allowed to give advice. It is an absolute miracle I have not  gone off the deep end.

In my opinion, Gilday should face the same injury he did to me, that is a drill bit thru his tooth and broken off in the gum, at the hand of a dentist, an eye for an eye.
How can a simple small claim case where no rule 47 exists, turn into a total escape of justice for Gilday?
In my opinion , Gilday did not prove his case, he merely hides like a COWARD behind rule 47.
The court cannot erase the existence of material facts/evidence by merely waving the magic rule 47, anymore than you can erase the sun and moon by rule 47, unless you're a communist.
Rule 47 says a man is not entitled to his day in court unless he has an attorney. But I tell you no attorney will take the case because (1) the laws are stacked in favor of the dentist. (2) for some lame moronic reason rule 47 says that regardless how plain and simple the evidence, no matter that 90 people out of 100 could see the evidence and come to the same conclusion. Some "expert witness from the local dental community", must be willing to testify against his brother in the society before the evidence gets any exposure.
While rule 47 protects the medical industry, it does not offer that same protection to me or the mechanic, contractor, retail shop, bus driver, logger, school teacher, office assistant, landscaper.  In this regard it is unconstitutional. All men are created equal and the law should apply to all fairly. Article XIV. Section 1.   equal protection under the laws
I have a Right to my day in court and be heard by jury. If any claim can partially be verified it becomes a question for a jury. Must I buy my  way into the courtroom with a Lawyer?  Does rule 47 specifically state that dental malpractice cases require expert testimony? I think not! Who decides when one is and is not required?
If your not going to allow PRO-SE Plaintiff, then you need a 4x8 foot billboard at the clerks counter that says "Justice comes at steep price, if your Pro-se don't bother wasting your money, only lawyers allowed here, be sure to understand how rule 47 will screw you".
As a judge, you dont have to subscribe to rule 47d, or at least you can postpone granting that until the week before trial, forcing the defense to do their due diligence and compelling them to produce the requested production.
You could force them to produce evidence that contradicts mine (gee that does sound like justice).

HOW TO VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTION, IF YOUR IN THE MEDICAL PROFESSION
In my opinion,  If you injure someone and you want to avoid all liability:
1. Create a brotherhood such as the LANE County Denial Society. Instruct the membership that if they stick together and never testify against one another, theyll enjoy automatic immunity to nearly everything that any normal citizen must be held accountable to.
2. Contribute great sums of money to Lobbying efforts in Salem.
3. Have the law makers pollute the law and make it putrid,  but pro-medical industry.
4. So rule 47 was created, designed to benefit the richest of the litigants. Designed to protect the medical profession, by throwing cases out of court before a judge or jury can hear the merits of the case, God forbid that the truth ever exposes doctors mistakes or that a permanent public record be created that maybe traceable to show a pattern of abuse.
This case was simple. I suffered over $15,000 ( a whole years income) in  documented out of pocket expenses plus permanent disfigurement.  Wanting to avoid the legal. hassles of regular court, I notified Damion Gilday of my intent to sue in small claims court. Then I filed in Small Claims Lane County for $5,000. The benefit is no lawyers and no nonsense like rule 47, the downside is I dont get full recovery. So then Damion Gilday files a denial and requests a jury trial. This forced me to move to circuit court (against my will) or pay him $130, (what an irony). I proved my prima fascia case, and in the defendants  ANSWER, he admitted some of his mistakes, for that reason alone, the case never should have left small claims.
So in a carefully crafted plan, doctors can keep their names out of lawsuits, even from small claims, by cowardly hiding behind rule 47. They will spend $10,000 to avoid paying $1 to $5,000 in small claims, to shield their names.

THIS IS THE SOLUTION! EXPOSE THEM AS I HAVE DONE HERE. (I AM NOT AN ATTORNEY, I AM NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR ACTIONS, YOU MUST SEEK LICENSED HELP (OH, THE HYPOCRISY!))

I contacted many attorneys, non were interested and I have phone recording where the lawyers are saying it is nearly impossible to sue a dentist because of the "good-o-boy" wall of silence, where no bother will testify against another, utilizing rule 47 to immunize each other. These lawyers indicate that if an expert witness were found, he would come "from out of state", and would be challenged on his knowledge of "local" procedures, yet Id owe him $7,000 or more for his testimony.
I contacted many dentists, they all declined me, regardless that ANY JUROR CAN SEE AND HEAR WITH THEIR OWN EYES, the errors made on me.  I contacted the Lane County Dental Society, the society refused to help locate an "expert witness", saying "thats not what we do".
Plaintiff reiterates that all claims made in his complaint are true.
All court papers will be published for the world to see.
Of course I will appeal if I lose.
 
REPRINTED from court records:
PLAINTIFF FIRST RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO DEFENDANT
  17.2/ Code Pleading, FRCP12(6)(6) Pro se complaints are held to a less strict standard than those drafted by a lawyer 857F2d559, 563
REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
REQUEST NO. 1: Any and all photographs or x-rays depicting plaintiffs injuries alleged to be the result of defendant Dr. Gildays care.
RESPONSE:  ILL GIVE YOU WHAT I HAVE
REQUEST NO. 2: The names and addresses of all dentists or others involved in the dental related arts
RESPONSE: Attached are  copies of all chart notes, x-rays, photos, billings, dates, I have .
REQUEST NO. 3:  The names and addresses of all dentists or others involved in the dental related arts who have examined plaintiff or with whom plaintiff has made appointments (whether kept or not) or consulted prior to seeking treatment with defendant Dr. Gilday as well as legible copies of all chart notes or treatment records, and x-rays maintained by the examiners from 1987 to the present.
RESPONSE: Done, same as above
REQUEST NO. 4:  In accordance with ORCP 44C and 44D, written reports from any and all examining dentists whom plaintiff has consulted since leaving defendant Dr. Gildays care, relating to the injuries or conditions for which recovery is sought. These records should set out the history provided by plaintiff personally, the medical providers findings including the results of any tests made, the medical providers diagnosis and conclusions, together with similar reports of all earlier examinations for the same conditions, if any.
RESPONSE: Same as above
REQUEST NO. 5: All documents and information reflecting plaintiffs dental treatment, expenses and billings subsequent to leaving the care of defendant which plaintiff claims to have been the result of defendant Dr. Gildays conduct, together with a current total of claimed medical expenses.
RESPONSE: Attached is a spread sheet.
REQUEST NO. 6: Any and all documents, including diaries, video-tapes or video-cassettes, which plaintiff has control over which may pertain to plaintiffs communication with defendant Dr. Gilday or attempts to memorialize any contact with defendant Dr. Gilday.
RESPONSE: I have none
REQUEST NO. 7:  Any phone records, notes or other memorialization of phone conversations between plaintiff and Dr. Gilday.
RESPONSE: Not aware of any
REQUEST NO. 8:  Any and all correspondence between plaintiff and Dr. Gilday and/or his agents.
RESPONSE: Done
REQUEST NO. 9: Any documents that reflect lost wages including pay stubs, W-4s from 1995 trough the present as well as tax returns from 1995 trough the present.
RESPONSE: I am not claiming any  lost wages. Even the IRS does not require more than 3 years of tax returns. You are not entitled to those returns.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
 
Elizabeth A. Schleuning (re: GILDAY)                                                                           Jeff  Jones prose v. Gilday
Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt, PC                                                                                Lane Co. Case 160507161
Attorneys at law                                                                                                            File 030665
Pacwest Center, Suites 1600-1900
1211 S.W. Fifth Ave.
Portland, Or 97204-3795
 
June 11, 2005
I am in receipt of your 6/6/05 letter today.  I will temporarily halt all future pickets for a period of fourteen business days, giving you ample time to further explain yourself and to show me the errors of my ways. Then I will reevaluate my thinking.  Please explain which particular statements or claims are defamatory and why?
As you know I am not a Lawyer, so I must rely on the Law Library for knowledge.
17.2/ Code Pleading, FRCP12(6)(6) Pro se complaints are held to a less strict standard than those drafted by a lawyer.
I have to tell you, I dont understand your complaint.  I called the City of Eugene and the Eugene Police Dept. and got advanced permission to picket.  I stayed a whole block away from  Gildays office and took pictures of the signs in the public right of way to prove my distance from the office.
The sign is NOT Defamatory, per this definition:
Defamation Definition
defamation definition an intentional false communication that injures another persons good name or
reputation. To amount to defamation, the communication must be published or spoken.
http://www.legal-definitions.com/defamation.htm
I stay out of peoples way, I dont force myself on anyone. Im not waving my arms.   If someone comes up to me to inquire, I only give them copies of public documents in the court record.  I dont embellish.  I can add to my future papers that; "an issue is sub judice -- under judicial consideration", if that helps you.
The copies include my COMPLAINT, your ANSWER , my REPLY.  In your ANSWER you made certain admissions and certain denials.  Therefore, you put the public on notice what you admit to and what you deny. That is fair and unbiased reporting.
If you file a counterclaim I would publish that too.  If  Gilday intimidates his patents, how long will he keep them?
According to the ACLU, I have a right to my First Amendment rights, so long as I tell the truth, and that includes picketing.  Well, Im not really speaking anyway, just presenting public court records as a public service. I think the public has a right to know that what has and is happening to me could happen to them. I only state the facts and let the public come to their own conclusions.  Furthermore, this allows me DISCOVERY.  Giving me an opportunity to discover other patients that may have had a bad experience.
I will agree to attach a rebuttal letter from you to any papers I publish. That should satisfy you.
I am wanting to stay with-in the law, so if you can clarify your position, perhaps by sending me a draft of the counterclaim you intend to use.  Without you actually filing it, Id like to run the draft by the judge here and the ACLU to see if it makes sense. If the judge & the ACLU tells me your rights trample my 1st Amendment rights, then you have my cooperation.
In the alternative, Ive located these definitions:
MALICIOUS PROSECUTION - An intentional tort arising from the institution or instigation of unjustifiable and unreasonable civil or criminal litigation. An action for malicious prosecution can be brought against the underlying case's plaintiff, plaintiff's counsel and/or advisors.  http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/m062.htm
malicious prosecution
n. filing a lawsuit with the intention of creating problems for the defendant such as costs, attorneys' fees, anguish, or distraction when there is no substantial basis for the suit. If the defendant in the lawsuit wins and has evidence that the suit was filed out of spite and without any legal or factual foundation, he/she may, in turn, sue for damages against the person who filed the original action. If malice is clearly proved against the party who brought the original suit, punitive damages may be awarded along with special and general damages. In recent cases, courts have ruled that an attorney who knowingly assists a client in filing a worthless lawsuit out of malice or spite may be liable for damages along with the client.   http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?selected=1199&bold=%7C%7C%7C%7C

Im thinking a counterclaim against me, would amount to malicious prosecution.

Furthermore, Gildays malpractice insurance will not pay for prosecution, by law they can only pay for his defense.  So this counterclaim would come out of his pocket.

To further support my position, I bring your attention to the fact that hundreds of thousands of court papers from all 50 states are on the internet.

If this information was not readily available, it could be had though the "Freedom of INFORMATION ACT".

Jay Leno berates Michael Jackson every night, some of the things he says on national TV, comes very close to defaming. I dont see a lawsuit there, heck he was even called as a witness for Jackson! 

Even the news media reports the daily events of that case.

Im not berating or defaming anybody. So I dont understand your issues.

So if I republished:  "Fieux v. Cardiovascular & Thoracic Clinic, P.C.  159Or APP 637, 654,  978 P2d 429 , rev denied, 329 Or 318  (1999).   Is that defamation?

What if the persons that came into Gildays office to share what they received from me, were told by  Gildays office help, that I  was some crazy wacko?  Then came back to me and told me what was said by his wife or employees.  Would that be defamation TOWARDS  me?

Wouldnt you have to prove "special harm"?

A business gives raises to employees, then asks for employees to pay a small amount towards their medical insurance.  So they Picket. UNIONS  picket all the time. They always claim "*** UNFAIR ****" ,  thats likely even a  lie, do unions get sued for defamation?  How is paying a little for your insurance unfair?

I am on Social Security Disability for 12 years, I have no assets or property for you to collect on.

 "Legal personality may be defamed". Businesses for profit.  I think that means theyre fair game, not shielded by some good Samaritan act or government immunity.

1.040 Sittings of court to be public;  The sittings of every court of justice are public, [Amended by 1985 c.540 18]
American Civil Liberties Union  Advocating individual rights by litigating, legislating,  and educating the public on a broad array of issues affecting individual freedom.   from their website.

Found on the internet:

Defamation law and free speech:
The law of defamation is supposed to protect people's reputations from unfair attack. In practice its main effect is to hinder free speech and protect powerful people from scrutiny. This leaflet provides information about legal rights and options for action for people who may be threatened by a legal action or who are worried about something they want to say or publish.
What it is
The basic idea of defamation law is simple. It is an attempt to balance the private right to protect one's reputation with the public right to freedom of speech. Defamation law allows people to sue those who say or publish false and malicious comments.
There are two types of defamation.
* Oral defamation -- called slander -- for example comments or stories told at a meeting or party.
* Published defamation -- called libel -- for example a newspaper article or television broadcast.
Defenses
When threatened with a defamation suit, most people focus on whether or not something is defamatory. But there is another, more useful way to look at it. The important question is whether you have a right to say it. If you do, you have a legal defense.
If someone sues you because you made a defamatory statement, you can defend your speech or writing on various grounds. There are three main types of defense:
* what you said was true;
* you had a duty to provide information;
* you were expressing an opinion.
For example:
* You can defend yourself on the grounds that what you said is true.
* If you have a duty to make a statement, you may be protected under the defense of "qualified privilege."
* If you are expressing an opinion, for example on a film or restaurant, then you may be protected by the defense of "comment" or "fair comment," if the facts in your statement were reasonably accurate.
What can happen
* You can be threatened with a defamation suit. You might receive a letter saying that unless you retract a statement, you will be sued. There are numerous threats of defamation. Most of them are just bluffs; nothing happens. Even so, often a threat is enough to deter someone from speaking out, or enough to make them publish a retraction.
* Proceedings for defamation may be commenced against you. This is the first step in beginning a defamation action. Statements of claim, writs or summons shouldn't be ignored. If you receive one, you should seek legal advice.
* The defamation case can go to court, with a hearing before a judge or jury. However, the majority of cases are abandoned or settled. Settlements sometimes include a published apology, sometimes no apology, sometimes a payment, sometimes no payment. Only a small fraction of cases goes to court.
Options
In practice, the structure of the court system and the media serve the powerful while doing little to protect the reputation of ordinary people. They undermine the open dialogue needed in a democracy. There are various options for responding to uses of defamation law to silence free speech. Each has strengths and weaknesses.
Avoid defamation
Writers can learn simple steps to avoid triggering defamation threats and actions. The most important rule is to state the facts, not the conclusion.  Let readers draw their own conclusions.
Use publicity
Just because you are sued doesn't mean you can't say anything more. (Many organizations avoid making comment by saying that an issue is sub judice -- under judicial consideration -- but that's just an excuse.) You can still speak. In particular, you can comment on the defamation action itself and its impact on free speech. It's also helpful to get others to make statements about your case.
Helen Steel and Dave Morris, members of London Greenpeace, produced a leaflet critical of McDonald's RESTAURANTS . McDonald's sued. Steel and Morris, with no income, defended themselves. They used the trial to generate lots of publicity. Because of the trial, their leaflet has reached a far greater audience than would have been possible otherwise. The whole exercise has been a public relations disaster for McDonald's.
Speak out
Petitions, street stalls and public meetings can be used to directly challenge the use of defamation law against free speech. One possibility is to circulate materials that have been subject to defamation threats or writs. Another is to protest directly against those who attempt to use defamation law to suppress legitimate comment. If enough people directly challenge inappropriate uses of the law, it will become harder for it to be used.
Conclusion
Defamation law doesn't work well to protect reputations. It prevents the dialogue and debate necessary to seek the truth. More speech and more writing is the answer to the problem rather than defamation law, which discourages speech and writing and suppresses even information that probably wouldn't be found defamatory if it went to court. Published statements -- including libelous ones -- are open, available to be criticized and refuted. The worst part of defamation law is its chilling effect on free speech.
The principal author of this document is Brian Martin, with extensive advice and comment on drafts from Richard Blake, Sharon Callaghan, Michael Curtis, Don Eldridge, Chris Fox, Judith Gibson, Jack Goldring, Mary Heath and Mick Skrijel.
E-mail: brian_martin@uow.edu.au     Web: http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/dissent/

I found this on the internet too.  What would I find out, if I were to take a deposition from ALL Gildays employees in all three offices?
http://www.whistleblower.org/article.php?did=384&scid=100
Who is a whistleblower?
 
Every year, thousands of Americans witness wrongdoing on the job. What they witness may jeopardize the health, safety or lives of others. They may see managers at a nuclear facility violate a safety code, a chemical company dump hazardous waste unlawfully, or a food processing plant attempt to sell contaminated and dangerous meat to consumers.
Most employee remain silent. Others choose to bear witness and speak out. They seek to make a difference by blowing the whistle on unethical conduct in the workplace. Our composite definition of whistleblower taken from combined state, federal and international cases is an employee who exercises from speech rights to challenge corporate and government abuses of power that betray the public trust.
Blowing the whistle may include:
(a)    reporting wrongdoing or a violation of the law to the proper authorities such as a supervisor, a hotline or an Inspector General
(b)   refusing to participate in workplace wrongdoing
(c)    testifying in a legal proceeding
(d)   leaking evidence of wrongdoing to the media
http://www.falseclaimscase.com/
Do you suspect your employer is committing fraud? Do you know what your legal options are concerning false claims?  Are you confused about the procedures involved in filing a False Claims Act Case?
If you answered yes to any of the preceding questions, you've come to the right place. This site offers extensive information on the "Qui Tam" provisions of the False Claims Act, and actual examples of some of the larger false claims cases in recent years. We handle cases across the United States.
http://www.nationalquitamlawyers.com/
Filing a Qui Tam Claim What You Need To Know
There are many important aspects of filing a potential claim under the False Claims Act.
First, be careful to only discuss your information with an Attorney who can assist you in evaluating the merit of your potential claim. Disclosure of the details of your potential claim to the media or other individuals prior to filing suit may prohibit you from sharing in any recovery.
Next, being the first to file a potential claim is vital. Only the first individual to file a claim has the right to share in any recovery. Even if your knowledge is greater and you are not the first to file, you may be denied from sharing in any recovery.
If you are aware or suspect of any person, company or entity involved in defrauding the Government, do not delaycontact us today!
Whistleblower Rights You are Protected!
Do not be afraid to report fraud! The Whistleblower Protection Act, an amendment to the False Claims Act, protects you from harassment, demotion, and wrongful termination for reporting fraud.
I let the court know, that it  erred in moving this case to arbitration, that will be cured.
Attached are 8 more pages of information about this issue.    Let me know if you want to talk out of court settlement.
CC: Gilday, file
Gilday forgave a $600 balance on my account and paid out money to (over $600) Michael Dryden DDS, because he admitted his error.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
REPRINTED from court records:
 
Defendant responds to Plaintiffs First Request for Production as follows:
12
13         GENERAL OBJECTIONS
14         1.         Defendant objects to any specifications of production that exceed those required
15 by the Oregon Rules of Civil Procedure.
16         2.         Defendant objects to producing any documents that are privileged under the
17 attorney-client privilege, work-product privilege, or that were prepared in anticipation for
18 litigation.
19         SPECIFIC RESPONSES
20         Subject to the above, and subject to the following specific objections, defendant
21 will produce the documents requested;
22 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1:
23         Any and all photographs and x-rays of the plaintiff, taken in your office or in your
24 possession from outside sources, including those digital and the pictures you sent to Aetna
25 Insurance for preauthorization.
1 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1:
2          Such documents will be provided to the extent they exist.
3 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.2:
4          The names and addresses, correspondence and summary of all patients from your three
5 offices, who have had broken drill bits or files at the hands or you or your office.
6 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.2:
7          Objection. Such request seeks irrelevant information that will not lead to any admissible
8 evidence. Defendant further objects on the grounds that this request seeks privileged and
9 confidential information of those patients and to provide such documentation would be in
10 violation of HI1PAA.
11 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.3:
12         The names and addresses, correspondence and summary of all patients from your three
13 offices, who have had any mishaps or complaints of any nature, at the hands of you or your
14 office.
15 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.3:
16         See objection to request number two. In addition, Defendant objects on the grounds that
17 Plaintiffs request is overly broad and vague.
18 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.4:
19         The names and addresses, correspondence and summary of all dentists or others involved
20 in the dental related arts who have had any contact with you, making reference or connection to
21 plaintiff.
22 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.4:
23         Objection to the extent Defendant seeks documents that are subject to attorney-client
24 privilege or work product. Defendant further objects on the grounds that the request is overly
25 broad and vague. Without waiving such objections, Defendant will provide a complete copy of
26 Defendants chart to Plaintiff.
1 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.5:
2          In accordance with ORCP 44C and 44D, complete written reports from any and all
3 examining dentists or others in the dental arts including the dental labs and second opinions with
4 whom you have consulted with concerning the plaintiff at any time.
5 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.5:
6          Objection. ORCP 44C and 44D are requests that are submitted to Plaintiffs who have
7 treated with a provider rather than Defendants. Defendant further objects on the grounds that
8 Plaintiff seeks information that is subject to attorney-client privilege or the work product
9 doctrine or that it seeks expert discovery which is not permitted in the State of Oregon.
10 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.6:
11         All documents, correspondence and information reflecting Plaintiffs dental treatment,
12 expenses and billing regarding the plaintiff or his other family members.
13 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.6:
14         Objection. This request is overly broad and vague. Plaintiffs request for documents,
15 correspondence and information relating to Plaintiffs family members will not lead to the
16 discovery of admissible evidence and is therefore irrelevant. Defendant is willing to provide a
17 set of the complete chart notes reflecting Plaintiffs dental treatment, expenses and billing.
18 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.7:
19         All correspondence, all notes, records, calendars or recordings that do and do not appear
20 on the plaintiffs chart notes. Including the many visits and dates by plaintiff to take pictures with
21 a malfunctioning camera. Identify the staff who attempted to take those photos.
22 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.7:
23         Objection. This request is in the nature of an interrogatory which is not permitted under
24 Oregons Rules of Discoveries. Additionally, such request is overly broad and vague.
25 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.8:
26         Identify each employee who worked on plaintiff. Identify the date, time and their
1 specific function performed on plaintiff.
2 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.8:
3          Objection. This request is in the nature of an interrogatory which is not permitted under
4 the rules of evidence in the State of Oregon.
5 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.9:
6          Any and all documents, including diaries, video-tapes or video-cassettes, which
7 defendant has control over which may pertain to plaintiffs communication with defendant Dr.
8 Gilday or attempts to memorialize any contact with defendant Dr. Gilday.
9 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.9:
10         All such documents will be provided.
11 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10:
12         Any phone records, notes or other memorialization of phone conversations between
13 plaintiff and Dr. Gilday.
14 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10:
15         All such documents in Dr. Gildays possession will be provided.
16 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11:
17         Any and all correspondence between plaintiff and Dr. Gilday and/or his agents.
18 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.11:
19         See response to request for production number 10.
20 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12:
21         All business and personal tax returns for Damion Gilday and Damion Gilday DMD from
22         1995 through the present.
23 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.12:
24         Objection. This request seeks personal and proprietary information that is unrelated to
25 the subject of this lawsuit and will not lead to a discovery of any admissible information.
26 Therefore, this request is irrelevant.
1 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13:
2          A full and complete copy of all insurance policies of every nature from defendant,
3 including policy limits.
4 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13:
5          Objection. This request is overly broad and vague. Without waiving such objection,
6 Defendant will provide a copy of declaration sheet with regard to dental malpractice.
7 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 14:
8          A copy of all business licenses and memberships to professional organizations.
9 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.14:
10         Objection. This request is overly broad and burdensome. To the extent that Defendant
11 has, without waiving such objection to the extent that Defendant has an updated CV, a copy of
12 such CV will be provided to Plaintiff.
13 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 15:
14         Identify all details of your professional, social and private relationships with Larry
15 Michael Over, DMD; Daniel C. Harper DMD; Gerald A. Harper, DDS; Michael T. Dryden DDS.
16 Include social events like lunch, dining, golf, vacation, seminars.
17 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.15:
18         Objection. Such request is in the nature of an interrogatory and is not permitted under
19 Oregon law.
20 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16:
21         A copy of the signed consent form and all other papers the plaintiff signed.
22 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.16:
23         Such documents will be provided.
24 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 17:
25         A copy of any molds, models, temporary teeth made for plaintiff
26 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.17:
1          Such copies of molds, models or temporary teeth to the extent they exist will be made
2 available for inspection by the Plaintiff at a time and date to be arranged by defense counsel.
3 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 18:
4          State the name of your initial dental school, degree conferred and date conferred.
5 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.18:
6          Objection. Such request is in the nature of an interrogatory. Without waiving such
7 objection to the extent the Defendant has a current CV, it will be provided.
8 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 19:
9          Identify any and all advanced or specialized training, such as root canal training. State
10 the name of your dental school, degree conferred and date conferred.
11 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.19:
12         See response to request for production of documents number 18.
13 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 20:
14         State all Board exams and certifications with dates.
15 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.20:
16         See response to request for production of documents number 18.
17 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.21:
18         Sate all general professional and specialty associations you belong to and for how long.
19 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.21:
20         See response to request for production of documents number 18.
21 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 22:
22         State each practice and specialty youve been involved in along with the number of years
23 engaged.
24 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.22:
25         See response to request for production of documents number 18
26 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 23:
1          State all current and previous malpractice claims against you. The nature of the claim,
2 date made and city location.
3 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.23:
4          Objection. This request is in the nature of an interrogatory and is not proper under
5 Oregon law. Defendant additionally objects on the grounds of irrelevancy. This request will not
6 lead to the discovery of any admissible evidence in this case.
7 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 24:
8          State all current and previous disciplinary action against you. The nature of the claims,
9 date made and city location. State the resolution of the complaint, including the nature of any
10 discipline imposed.
11 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.24:
12         See response to request for production of documents number 23.
13 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 25:
14         State the total number of times you have sent patients from your practice to any other
15 professional for specialized work, including endodontists.
16 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.25:
17         Objection. This request is in the nature of an interrogatory.
18 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 26:
19         State the total number of patients in your three locations.
20 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.26:
21         See response to request for production of documents number 25.
22 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 27:
23         Explain your diagnosis of the plaintiffs medical complaints, your course of action and
24 why you chose them.
25 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.27:
26         Objection. Such request is in the nature of an interrogatory and is not appropriate under
1          Oregon law.
2 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 28:
3               Explain why you had to make two set of crowns.
4 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION     NO.28:
5               See response to request for production of documents number 27.
6 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 29:
7               Explain why you undertook a root canal best suited for an endodontist to perform.
8 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION     NO.29:
9               See response to request for production of documents number 27.
10 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 30:
11              Explain why you stopped seeing plaintiff without resolving all issues.
12 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION   NO.30:
13              See response to request for production of documents number 27.
14
15
16         Dated this 21 day of June, 2005.
17    SCHWABE, WILLIAMSON & WYATT, P.C.
18
19
20                                 Elizabeth A. Schleuning, OSB #85427
21                                 Of Attorneys for Defendant
                                    Damion Gilday, DMD

 In my opinion Elizabeth should not have a law license, clearly her answers are not serving the public.
__________________________________________________________________________________________
 
Recently, I went to San Diego from July 18 to Sept. 20, 2005 to get 12 healthy upper teeth pulled and a temporary upper denture made. (I did this because of constant pain and infections in the front upper gum & #14 gum, and left ear. I went to 5 different doctors in Eugene. Each one took my money but did not produce positive results.)
The teeth removal & denture was done by 3 doctors in Tijuana  Mexico, it took nearly 12 visits across the boarder, due to follow up minor surgeries to remove stitches, bone fragments, relining & modifying the denture. Each of the 12 teeth had to be cut into 4 pieces and removed one root at a time. I was in the chair for 6 straight non-stop hours the first time. I had to get a pain shot in the butt because the Novocain was not enough, so much Novocain had to be used, that it killed the tissue around the lips. The gums are still healing and I will need a new denture in a few months, this denture is very loose.
I originally came to Gilday with 2 Porcelain Crown top front teeth made in Mexico a year earlier. 1 had swelling in the roof of my mouth. I was told the problem was a blunt edge on the back side of these teeth, not allowing the gum to cover the crowns.
I was told that Gilday would replace these crowns with ones that fit properly. Drew Webster, a now "ex-partner" of Gilday, made plastic temporary teeth while the new permanent crowns were being made.
AT THAT TIME, WEBSTER, TOLD ME HE WAS NOT HAPPY BEING A DENTIST AND WAS PLANNING ON QUITTING.
The new permanents were installed and I got an immediate infection from them because they did not fit any better than the Mexican ones.
Webster then sent me to Daniel  Harper (Periodonics),  who said there was infection and wanted to do surgery for a $2,000 fee, to do "tooth lengthen" to prepared the teeth that the crowns bind to. I rejected that idea, and had the permanents removed and the temps reinstalled. I then waited for the infection to heal.
ODDLY, I never had any problems from the plastic temporary crowns. They felt good, looked good and NEVER caused any gum problems or infections.
Returning to Daniel Harper, and telling him this good news about the temps, he agreed that the lengthening  was not needed.
Then Gilday did a root canal on #14, drilling thru a Gold Crown. He broke a drill bit off inside the tooth but said it was nothing to worry about. Within a few weeks it got infected, causing me great intense pain for many days. #14 was now sensitive to Hot and Cold & Pressure.
Gilday then sent me to Dr. Michael Dryden, who put me on antibiotics for a week ( Still SUFFERING a great deal), then Dryden did surgery on my gum, cutting it open and grinding the tips of the #14 roots. He left the broken drill bit in. Then he sealed that tips, leaving the drill bit in the middle between the top & bottom sealants. The surgery was terrifying and post pain was intense and long. It had been several weeks and I still had sensitivity and discomfort in that tooth.
I had asked Dryden (prior to surgery) if I would not be better off having that tooth pulled instead of the proposed surgery, He talked me out of it. I wish I had it pulled.  Im thinking he was only interested in the money.
Dr. Dryden forced me to PREPAY $349 before surgery. Gilday agreed to pay an additional $600+ directly to Dryden. I believe Dryden should refund my money because I eventually had to pull Tooth #14 anyway. (loosing that expensive Gold Crown). Not to mention pain & suffering.  Dryden has DIGITAL X-rays of the infection of #14 and has prescribed antibiotics.
Weeks earlier, my Primary Care Physician , James Harrison MD prescribed antibiotics for a left ear infection.
Dr. Daniel Harper  did no actual work, only an evaluation. He later decided I did not need surgery. He says I owe him $120. Which remains unpaid. Gilday refuses to pay for that. These monies should be paid for by Gilday, because his office sent me to these doctors because of incompetence of Gildays office
Gilday owes me for a dozen round trips from Cottage Grove time & mileage. Gilday owes me for much pain and suffering. Gilday still owes me a pair of perfect fitting Porcelain front teeth, except now I have no teeth. So now he owes me for a lifetime of  no teeth, poor fitting dentures, nightly cleaning rituals. Gilday owe me for living & travel expenses  while in San Diego and the cost of the work done there.
I regret the loss of my teeth, there is no pleasure in eating, food tastes like cardboard. Ive lost over 25 pounds from not eating on sore gums. I talk with a lisp now and I cant sing any more.
I also had another gold crown replaced by Webster, that did go well. I made many fruitless trips to this dentist for them to repeatedly take pictures of the cracks in my teeth to send to the insurance company. Repeatedly, they could not get the camera to work. They did not bother to test it, before telling me to drive from Cottage Grove to them, repeatedly.
I went back to Gilday for a SECOND fitting of a second set of permanent crowns, made by OBrien labs. This time a new female dentist (replacing Webster) refused to listen to me , when I asked her to use temporary cement to attach the new crowns. I warned her of the past problems. She told me that "she was the doctor" and she "knew" what she was doing. I told her, "you said it , you own it"  She proceeded to use permanent cement. Using force from her thumb, she pressed the crowns deep into my open mouth, when she was done, the Newest crowns were pointing backwards, and would push my bottom jaw back into my neck with the overbite from the crowns. I had to learn how to chew all over again. Gilday refused to do further work. Over several months, My neck was developing spasms from this un-natural byte.  I was having so much trouble with that, I needed weekly massages with a physical therapist. (This PT will testify the cause was these misfit crowns. This PT was also a dental assistant in her prior job.)
I have a lot of apprehension and fear. I have gone thru a hell of a lot of pain through this whole process.
In February 2004, I hired Larry Over to evaluate the dental work I had received thus far. I had kept the identity of Gilday secret, until Larry kept hounding me about who it was. I did not want to tell him because I wanted an unbiased opinion .  Well, it turns out they are close friends and so Larry refused to blame Gilday.
But curiously, he states that I will need the extraction of tooth 14 (broken drill bit) as well as more than $17,200 in new additional work.
I think I paid Larry Over, $500 for his "Expert opinion", Since he refuses to implicate Gilday, (Over said he would ask Gilday to redo the work) I think I should get my money back.  I dont think I got my moneys worth.
I  DO HAVE SEVERAL DENTAL MODELS OR MOLDS OF MY TEETH BEFORE AND AFTER GILDAYS WORK!!!  I ALSO HAVE BEFORE AND AFTER PANORAMIC XRAYS.
Before I decided to have my teeth pulled, I had tooth 14 pulled by Dentist  Gerald Alan Harper 
(not to be confused with  Daniel Harper) I did this hoping the ear and gum infections around #14 would stop, it did. Gerald charge me $500 to remove one tooth.  Gerald was billing for another $65, so I brought him an x-ray, two weeks ago. I showed him that the broken drill bit from the extracted tooth was still in my gum. He was supposed to have removed it. He apologized profusely and told me I did not have to pay the extra $65.  He asked me what he could do for me.  I think he should refund my $500.
This whole process has taken more than nine months. 4 trips to Dryden, 2 trips to Daniel Harper and about a dozen to Gilday, 2 trips to Gerald Harper, 2 trips to Larry Over and 1 trip to OBrian Labs in Corvallis.
 
 PLEASE READ PAGE 3