I received an email this morning from an investigator at the Office of the Indiana Attorney General, which requested more information regarding my complaint for discrimination by Dr Soofi and other employees of Affordable Dentures. It posed three questions that sought to identify the parties involved and to seek specific information for complaint narrative purposes:
My reply was as thorough as the alacrity in a response from the attorney general’s office was prompt, providing much more detail than was necessarily requested. Yes or no would have sufficed, but, so far, they have provided much better service than I have come to expect from other offices; a response in kind was the least I could muster in gratitude.
Regardless, more detail will eventually be required should the investigation proceed further, and I prefer to never put off till tomorrow what can be done today.
The details added justify a rightful expectation that the investigation proceed like no other before it. That will become increasingly clear to everyone as time goes on without treatment. The window for treating mandibular degeneration effectively closes fast; beyond that, there’s little hope of normal functioning and good health.
Following are excerpts from the email I sent to Deanna Silva, the investigator assigned to my complaint, which answer her questions regarding the identity of another dentist that is also a party to the discriminatory acts I allege, and answer whether an explanation was proffered by Dr. Soofi for his behavior.
Who is the other dentist?
“No, I don’t know his name,” would have worked, but not as hard as the task requires. What is missing from a name, anyway, is the tie that exists between the substitute dentist and the hygienist’s actions. One cannot be extricated from the other, as a case of discrimination can only be lodged against an organizational body, and, that, only if a policy and practice of discrimination can be established. The latter requires a demonstration of a concerted effort by multiple persons in the organization in conjunction with their regular duties as members. Effort is defined as a series of acts performed in the course of duty and obligation that are improperly or unlawfully carried out for discriminatory reasons. Such acts do not necessarily have to be in tandem to be a joint effort; each individual contribution could be spread out over time by a clearly established policy of discrimination. That case would be much harder to prove; however, fortunately, it does not require the acts to bear a direct connection to a specific target of discrimination.
My expanded answer sought to meet each of these standards for alleging discrimination and to set the proper stage for proving the facts that gave rise to the complaint:
My answer emphasizes that this all happened in the hearing of others in the waiting room, making the humiliation public. It strengthens the claim of the dentist intending to shame me rather than addressing the actual concern at-hand.
Without directly referencing the overall pattern of behavior, by stating that this was the second of three attempts by the staff to compel me to terminate my relationship adds credibility to my claim that the effort to make me leave through intimidation and frustration was premeditated:
“Unfortunately, I do not know the name of the dentist filling in for Dr. Soofi at the time of the incident. My appointment was with the dental hygienist I accuse of the assaultive behavior, which ended only after I finally managed to slip out from underneath her unyielding and forceful push of a tray dripping over with paste into my throat. In protest to my repeated, emphatic declarations of extreme discomfort, she made an exasperated request to an unseen audience outside the treatment room, saying “come handle this guy [me] — I can’t take it!”
(I begin my description of the events in a way that immediately conveys my discomfort and its direct correlation to her abusive attitude and behavior. It’s a logical build-up that sets up the dentist’s abrupt entry into the situation)
As if on cue, an angry-looking man I had never seen before burst into the room. He identified himself only as Dr. Soofi’s temporary replacement, and, before introductions could be extended further, he immediately lobbed a litany of loud demands to justify my presence at the appointment given my “opportunistic thrush infection” (which I was not aware of until then). The questions were designed to make room for the inference that it was a wanton and careless disregard for the public threat posed by a loathsome disease on my part that justified the egregious conduct of the hygienist. Although not an actual statement, the pressured delivery of the questions, presented interrogation-style, combined with the volume of his voice, and about a subject that failed to merit any cause or concern not previously addressed, formed the constructive equivalent of “you’re a danger to people on purpose, and deserved what happened.”
(I elaborate further on the dentist’s behavior, communicating in a clear and concise way the crux of my complaint against him, i.e., that his loud, accusatory tone and the suggestion that my condition somehow justified the hygienist’s intimidation was intentional and with a premeditated purpose in mind, which matches my claim of discrimination and harassment. By mentioning specific phrases he used ( “opportunistic thrush infection,” the keyword being opportunistic) adds depth, showing an intent to blindside me and narrowing the case as to the means by which the dentist intended to achieve his aims)
He completely ignored my tearful, breathless state and obvious signs of distress, disregarding the expected concern over the impression procedure incident. This exchange could be overheard by customers in the waiting area, who were visibly shaken.
The purpose for being overheard was to leverage the stigma created by my medical condition to not only run me off and embarrass me in the hearing of strangers in the waiting room, but to counter their witness of the hygienist’s behavior.
This was the second of three attempts by employees at Affordable Dentures to get me to terminate my relationship as a customer through abrasive behavior and provoking a response that could justify their doing so.”
Did Dr. Soofi explain himself?
To advance my claim against Dr. Soofi and Affordable Dentures, I took the opportunity presented by the question to provide a closer look at Dr. Soofi’s actions (which the original complaint sufficiently alleges, but which fails to provide a more detailed account afforded by the narrative within my answer). The following excerpt is a more substantive recognition of the centrality of the Dr. Soofi’s behavior in the context of my overall complaint. It captures key aspects of his conduct during my extraction appointment, where he ultimately ejected me from his office without providing any legitimate medical explanation for his actions, threatening police intervention, all in the same breath.
“The third attempt was made by Dr. Soofi, who never provided a direct explanation for his agitation prior to ejecting me from his office. There was no observable issue at the beginning or during the extraction procedure, and nothing that could be reasonably interpreted as a trigger for his behavior before or after my removal from the premises. However, his intention to terminate our treatment relationship became evident early on, beginning with his sudden announcement that he was reneging on his agreement to administer nitrous oxide sedation for the procedure. This agreement, documented in the treatment plan and paid for months in advance, was the foundation for my decision to seek treatment with Dr. Soofi. The abrupt reversal on this critical aspect of care set the stage for what seemed to be a calculated effort to induce distress.
His refusal to honor the sedation agreement, followed by a series of erratic entries and exits from the treatment room, conveyed not only his agitation but also a deliberate attempt to escalate fear and anxiety. By withholding any explanation for his actions, Dr. Soofi allowed these emotions to intensify, forcing me to speculate as to the cause of his erratic behavior. This withholding of information—where a reasonable person might expect some clarification—appears to have been a tactical decision aimed at undermining my confidence, heightening my distress, and ultimately justifying his unjustifiable actions.
In the absence of any legitimate rationale, it is clear that Dr. Soofi’s conduct was meant to intimidate, his unexplained actions seemingly designed to conceal an underlying, unlawful motive. His behavior not only lacked professional decorum but also breached the basic trust necessary in a medical context, further suggesting that his actions were motivated by factors beyond clinical care.
Dr. Soofi's demand that I leave, coupled with his threat to call the police, further underscores the coercive nature of his actions, reinforcing the conclusion that his unexplained behavior was part of an unlawful tactic of intimidation and control, rather than any legitimate medical concern. This escalation not only served to heighten my fear but also to preemptively dissuade any attempt to challenge his actions, effectively closing off any opportunity for dialogue or clarification.”
Here’s why the expanded account is so important to my complaint, and how it aims to progress the investigation in a favorable direction:
First, The excerpt regarding Dr. Soofi’s actions establishes a clear pattern of behavior. By outlining how he suddenly deviated from the agreed treatment plan, particularly the reversal of his agreement to use nitrous oxide sedation, I show that his behavior wasn’t just unprofessional—it was intentionally distressing. This connects directly to the larger narrative of mistreatment I’ve experienced at this clinic.
Moreover, it underscores that there was no medical justification for his actions. Dr. Soofi’s decision to deny me sedation, despite it being pre-approved and paid for — not to mention having been integrated into a plan of treatment that he authored himself — and absent any stated medical reason for doing so, support the contention that his actions were driven by personal bias rather than legitimate medical concerns when combined with the conduct of other staff, and when coupled with the behavior that ensued after — all of which occurred absent of indication or explanation. This is key in supporting my claims of discrimination and mistreatment.
The most striking element of Dr. Soofi’s behavior is the intimidation tactics he employed, primarily, by the personal characteristics displayed during the encounter. His angry face and tone. His silence. His refusal to answer questions. His stomping exits and abrupt entries. His threat to call police. These are not just unprofessional — they were overt acts that meant to establish and increase anxiety and, eventually, instill fear to coerce a breach of contract on my part, which would have absolved him of any future liability for medical malpractice or discrimination. This highlights how his conduct wasn’t merely neglectful; it was coercive and part of a larger attempt to undermine my confidence and heighten my distress.
Additionally, the portion of the excerpt about his failure to provide any explanation is critical. By refusing to offer any legitimate reasoning for his agitation, I demonstrate that this omission was part of his plan to heighten fear and anxiety, further contributing to the unlawful nature of his actions.
When someone acts upset but doesn’t say why, it is a safe bet that they may not have a reason they could share in polite company.
Finally, the addition of an expanded narrative serves the broader issue (and, inarguably, the primary cause for the action overall). It shows that Dr. Soofi’s behavior aligns with what I’ve experienced from other staff members at Affordable Dentures, making it clear that this was part of a pattern of mistreatment designed to force me out as a customer. This isn’t just about bad customer service—this is about discrimination, harassment, and intimidation, and it reinforces the validity of my entire complaint.
Update (9/17/24)
In my recent exchange with Deanna Silva, the investigator handling my consumer complaint, she thanked me for responding quickly and assured me that if she or the Deputy Attorney General needed any further information, they'd reach out. She also mentioned that she had updated my file with my new address, which was a relief since I wanted to make sure everything was up to date.
In my reply, I thanked her for the update and then asked if I should amend my complaint, given that I've added quite a bit of new information since I originally filed it. I wanted to make sure that the complaint reflects everything that's relevant, and I figured it was worth checking in to see if a formal amendment was necessary.
