P.O. BOX 75
MONROE, NH 03771

The information set out in this report is from my own records. The medical information is directly from medical records placed in my medical files giving me the legal right to release them. The other records are also based on correspondence and public records which I also have the right to release.


Page 1


Originally from the Boston area, from the age of 12 to the present I have lived most of my life in the same small community. I graduated valedictorian of my high school class of 1960 from a very small school in the Town of Haverhill, New Hampshire. I graduated in 1964 from the University of New Hampshire with honors with a B.A. degree in History. I was enrolled in the Advanced Air Force Reserve Officer Training Corp and received the American Legion Award as an outstanding scholar/athlete. I was enrolled in graduate school at the University in 1964-65 in History the first semester and Zoology in the second semester. I taught Science in school in Marlboro, N.H. in 1965-66, in Piermont, N.H. in 1966-68. In 1968 (with my new wife) we went to St. Louis, Missouri where I taught school and took night law courses at St. Louis University. In 1969-70 I attended law school full time at St. Louis University. In 1970-72 I attended Suffolk University Law School and graduated in June 1972. I successfully passed the New Hampshire Bar Examination and on October 12, 1972 was admitted to practice law in the State of New Hampshire. After five years associated with a law firm in Woodsville, NH, I set up my own private practice in the same village (Woodsville) in the Town of Haverhill. Since 1972, I have lived in Haverhill, NH and in 1986 moved to the adjoining town of Monroe. We have two grown children who are on their own. I have dealt with real estate and probate legal work since 1972, and have been in practice for 31 years this October, 2003.

I have not had any disciplinary findings by the Court during my practice of law.

Before the medical and dental damages began in 1995, I was a very physically active person who ran a 6.8-mile course, 4 days a week and often a 10-mile course one day of the weekend.

Since late 1995 there have been very few occasions in which I have not had an infection in the upper jaw and/or sinuses. I can no longer run or walk for exercise and my activities have been greatly diminished because of the injuries and chronic infections. Since the week of April 18, 2003 until this past week, I have spent most of my time lying down because of an infection in my upper right jaw. What has occurred has had a substantial negative impact on my income and life. Since April 18, 2003 my office has been for the most part closed.

This personal history will be finished later in this report to explain later events recited in this report.


First, I will set out a series of medical/dental damages starting with the most damaging and most blatant, even though they came later in time. I will place numbers to each based on earliest to latest in time. I will cover those starting in 1995 at the end. I want to get your immediate attention, enough so that you will read the entire report. Please note that the series of injuries start in 1995 and increase in number and severity with time.

The question raised by all who have read this material so far is how starting in 1995 could so many dental/medical mishaps occur to one person, in such a short period of time when they involved relatively simple dental and surgical procedures which caused injuries that would only happen to a person without financial means in a primitive third world country?

Finally, I am going to set out a series of non-medical damages which were occurring at the same time which caused financial damage. Please note that this is only a portion of both medical/dental/non-medical incidents with all the records made available to the news media upon request.

It is my position that the incidents set out in the report would never have happened if the medical and dental Boards overseeing these professions were independent of the members of these professions. The incidents herein indicate that the Boards are to protect the doctors and dentists from legitimate claims of injured patients. The hearings and investigations are secret and do not go to a formal hearing, unless there has been multiple debilitating fatal injuries to multiple patients and is made public by the the news media.

Another tool which is used to conceal major damage to patients and the public once the case gets into a court, is to immediately settle with a confidentiality agreement. One need only review that many child sexual abuse cases involving Roman Catholic priests which went on for so long, primarily because of confidential settlements and secrecy. Secret proceedings of professional Boards and confidential settlement agreements should be prohibited, as against public policy.

The danger of these types of proceedings is that they are open to being used for unlawful purposes by the Government or other powerful groups.

When you finish this report, you may also agree with me.


It should be noted that my body holds much of the evidence which can be obtained from a full medical evaluation.


"Infections including abscesses of the teeth in the dental region can be especially dangerous as it can quickly spread up (a) into the head and can cause an abscess in the brain, (b)into the ears, down the neck, into the chest region and can cause cardioditis. Abscesses of the teeth if not treated can cause life threatening complications and can lead to death."
--Contemporary Implant Dentistry second edition, by Carl E. Misch, DDS, MDS.


Oral sinus fistula (hole through the jaw from the mouth directly into the sinus resulted from sinus lift surgery performed by Gerald Berube. On July 18, 1998 I had my initial appointment with Dr. Berube and gave him a letter setting out my past difficulties.

I am including a copy of the letter of the very preliminary evaluation from my dental expert as it will make you aware of all the procedures which should have occurred and those which were improperly performed. I have deleted the experts name as it is not critical for explanation of the basic procedures which should have been performed. (Be1A, Be1B, Be1C, Be1D, Be1E)

As a result of a series of dental mishaps, I had lost a number of my upper teeth especially on the upper right side with resulting infection in area of the tooth extractions in the jaw. He recommended a sinus lift and jaw augmentation(enlarging) to reduce the recurrence of infection. Only after this procedure had been completed and the artificial bone was integrated with my own bone, he would do the necessary tests to determine if implants would be feasible. There were no models, measurements for placement of implant pins, etc. prior to the surgery because only the lift and augmentation were discussed and consented to by me. On the day of the surgery (August 7, 1998) after I was given the sedative for the surgery, I was presented with the consent form to sign. Just before being brought to the operating room, he mentioned he might try to place the implant pins. When I became conscious after the surgery, he indicated he had tried to place a pin but it went up into my sinus and had to be removed.

Upon getting home from his office in Manchester, N.H., it appeared that the surgical opening was not completely closed and for the next several days, the hole became larger with more food particles getting lodged in the hole with increasing irritation and infection. From the beginning I called him to explain the widening hole, irritation and infection without response so then I began to fax letters but still to no avail. This went on for several weeks with recurring infection in the hole to the point that even my primary care physician became concerned because he observed the hole open down to the bone. On my last appointment on September 19, 1998, he refused to close the hole. It continued to get worse until September 21, 1998 when fluid with particles oozed out of the hole and there was a stinging sensation in the area. My primary care physician referred me to Lahey Hitchcock Clinic on October 2, 1998 for evaluation. (Be2)

The graft material had come out and there was a large hole into my sinus. When it did not clear up, there was surgery on December 4, 1998 and the report indicated acute inflammation, removal of a dead portion of my cheekbone as well as other material. (Be3 and Be4)

I now have a sunken right cheek.

The most obvious physical discrepancy was the location of the hole in my gum. If there had been a pin placed in my jaw upon which a tooth would be screwed over, it would have to be at the bottom of the gum where the original teeth were extracted. The hole was high up on the inside gum where the inner cheek met the gum. If a pin had been placed there, the tooth would have pointed straight out from the gum pushing out my upper cheek. I refer you to the photographs included in the section on Salah Salman which shows the position of the hole. I have also included a drawing from a dental treatise showing the hole (sinus fistula) in relation to the cheek as well as a photograph (Be5A, Be5B)

If there was to be implant pins placed for teeth, there was no legitimate reason or use for the hole way up at the top of the sinus cavity. However I soon discovered the location made it much more difficult to keep the sinus clear to stop the irritation and infection. In the natural swallowing process food and fluid are pushed up under pressure into the area between the gum and cheek. It was also a very large opening so much so that it was too large to close on its own. I found that if I did not completely cover the hole by pushing against the cheek, fluid and large food particles would go up into the sinus. With the hole at the top of the sinus cavity, the material would settle down in the bottom of the sinus cavity. The particles of food were especially difficult to clear out of the sinus cavity thereby causing continuing irritation and infection. Even the natural regular swallowing of saliva caused saliva with mouth bacteria to go up and settle in the sinus cavity again causing irritation and infections. During sleep there was no way to stop the saliva from settling in the sinus as the hole was so high up that even a mouth guard would not cover the hole.

It would be a very good way to punish someone with recurring irritation and infection. The longer it occurred the more likely of possibly more serious complications.

I requested that all my prior dental X-rays be sent to my next dentist and copies of my surgical records be sent to me but I did not receive all my records. According to my subsequent dentists only three old X-rays taken at Dr. Birkit's office in 1995-96 were sent to them by Dr. Berube. Berube.

On March 12, 1999, I filed a complaint setting out the above information and all the records with the New Hampshire Board of Dental Examiners in Concord, N.H. It included a CT scan evaluation prepared by Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary on October 29, 1998 setting out the damage to the sinus and sinus fistula. (Be6)

The Board sent notice that it would start an informal investigation. Once I received copies of my records from Berube, I filed a supplemental complaint noting that although his records indicated I was allergic Tetracycline, he had mixed the bone graft material with it. (Be7)

I indicated he had not told me of the material he used in the surgery. He sent me a letter on September 10, 1999 indicating he had sent all my records to me and X-rays to my new dentist. I received a letter from the Board dated October 22, 1999 informing of review of my complaint at an informal non-public session on November 1, 1999. I was informed that I was not a party to the hearing. I received a letter of November 8, 1999 informing that the facts did not represent misconduct sufficient to take action under the Dental Law (RSA 317-A) and the complaint was dismissed. I contacted the parties who had information on the case including dentists and surgeons, and was informed that none had been contacted for the investigation. After several inquiries of the Board and subsequent records obtained for trial, the only investigation was the incomplete records sent to the Board by Berube.

By letter of November 10, 1999 and a motion to reconsider of December 4, 1999, I again raised the issue of his use of Tetracycline when his own records showed I was allergic to it. The use of Tetracycline is not recommended as many types of bacteria are now resistant to it. Its use for intra-bony infections is questionable, as they are inactive while mixed with calcium complexes as was used in my surgery. Misch p264. I also raised again that Dr. Berube had failed to send a copy of the medical claim and letter sent to Healthsource which was set out in my records which he also sent to the Board. (Be8)

In response to a letter of December 14, 1999 from the Board, Dr. Berube's office sent a letter to the Board indicating, "we have sent a copy of all existing records to Mr. Wolf..." (Be9)

I repeatedly requested without success the Board's assistance in getting my X-rays and records. On January 24, 2000 I received a letter from the Board indicating they would not do anything further.

After great difficulty I was able to find a medical malpractice attorney to proceed with my case. She requested of Dr. Berube my records but received the same records as I did. A demand/claim for my injuries was made so that Dr. Berube placed the matter in the hands of an attorney. When my attorney made demand under discovery for my records, we received a number of records previously withheld from us and the Board.

Dr. Berube used the CT Scan of the para-nasal sinuses received from Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center dated June 1, 1998 to evaluate and recommend the augmentation/sinus lift surgery to clear up the infection and irritation in my upper right jaw. The Scan results indicated the sinuses were normal and not causing the irritation and infection. (Be10)
He also sent the request of August 7, 1998 for medical coverage to Medical Claims Review of Healthsource, my insurance provider which was contrary to the CT Scan he used to make the evaluation. (Be11)

He had also placed de-mineralized bone from human donors (cadavers) and other materials in my jaw without discussing and getting my informed consent.

On December 6, 2000 I sent a Motion to Reopen the prior complaint to the Board reciting and submitting copies of the new information. I listed many of the failings found by my expert as well as listed the statutory provisions that would have been violated. On December 6, 2000 I also sent a letter to the Attorney General of New Hampshire with copies of the materials presented to the Board. (Be12, Be12A)

He failed to send copies of my records to me or the Board and lied to me and the Board. Under NH RSA 332-I:1 I was entitled to a copy of such records which are deemed the property of the patient. The medical conditions set out in the request made to Healthsource were false and without basis and were never discussed with me. He also charged me for two procedures which are considered one procedure. Dental Board Code of Professional Conduct 5.B. Representation of Fees, advisory opinions. I listed numerous other transgressions which are not all listed herein.

As the Dental Board had not performed an investigation, I sent copies of the information to the Office of Attorney General which by statute represents the Board. I had a mistaken hope that they would advise the Board that the Board had to comply with and enforce the law and its own rules. I received a letter of January 12, 2001 from the Office of Attorney General informing that my material on reconsideration would be distributed to the Board members. The Board notified me on January 11, 2001 that the Board had voted to reconsider my complaint against Dr. Gerald A. Berube and an attorney from the Office of Attorney General would be assisting in the investigation.

On March 27, 2001 I sent a letter to the Board, its investigator and the Office of Attorney General with copies of the records. In my prior communications with the Board, it had been indicated that there were no records of investigations available. I decided to do a cursory search of the Superior Courts of the State of New Hampshire for any past and pending lawsuits against Dr Gerald Berube relating to his dental practice that might have been brought to the attention of the Board. I have included a portion of my letter of findings. (Be13A, Be13B)

From 1992 and 1993 there were three suits filed which were three in a five year period. From 1994 to 1999 there were two suits and my claim.

I received two letters from an investigator (State Police Officer) from the Office of Attorney General representing the Board requesting that I sign a complete waiver of my medical records on behalf of the Dental Board and Office of Attorney General. It now appeared that they were not interested in the records already presented to the Board and now wanted to investigate me. I sent him a letter of May 16, 2001 indicating that the Office of Attorney General acting as the counsel for the Board under State Statute had a clear conflict of interest with respect to the Board's failure to enforce State law and its own rules. (Be14)

I have not heard anything further from the Board so it never proceeded further on the re-opened complaint. To my knowledge no one with medical information to contribute to the case other Dr. Berube has ever been contacted by the Board or the Office of Attorney General. It would be safe to assume that there never was a "real" investigation.

I have shown the material in this report to various members of the public to obtain their reaction. Some thought Berube had friends in high places that were protecting him. Some thought he had done favors for or had something on people in high places who were forced to protect him. In any event all could not understand how the Board could refuse to act.


In order to prepare for the case against Dr. Gerald Berube, I needed an evaluation and surgery to close the fistula. My attorney wrote to Dr. Salah Salman explaining what we needed and that we would not be calling him as an expert in the case.

On August 11, 2000 Dr. Salman did an evaluation of the sinus and sinus fistula. On October 19, 2000 I underwent surgery. Although he recommended also surgery to fix a deviated septum from a broken nose as well, I did not consent to the additional surgery until just before going into the operating room when he indicated it would make it easier to close the sinus fistula. When I recovered from the anesthesia, I found a thick gauze bolt sewn over the opening of the sinus fistula with the stitches directly attached to my gum and cheek. The next day at home I noticed air movement in the sinus and when drinking some fluid entry. The stitching on the bolt had become loose and the bolt could easily be moved aside, showing the same original sinus opening without any stitching closing it. When I drank water it went up into my sinus and flowed out my nose. On October 24, 2000, I had six individuals view the area of the sinus fistula with a light and enclose copies. (Sa1 and Sa2, Sa3, Sa4, Sa5, Sa6)

On October 25, 2000 when Dr. Salman removed the gauze bolt and inspected the site, I told him that I could detect air passing in the sinus and had fluid go up inside but he ignored my comments. He wrote in my records of October 25, 2000, " I did not see any evidence of a fistula present. (Sa7)

Also as a result of the surgery I had one of my teeth on the upper left side damaged during surgery. It now had a crack running around the tooth about the mid-line of the observable portion and was quite sensitive.

On October 26, 2000 I called my attorney and explained the events. I still had irritation and infection and could still drink water which went into my sinus and flow out my nose. She told me to immediately go to an emergency room as I had done on past occasions. I immediately went to Cottage Hospital and was seen by Dr. Gerald Lyons. I explained the recent surgery, the prior condition of fluid coming out my nose. He observed me take a drink from a glass of water at the sink in the emergency room and have the water flow out my nose and down my face. He then was able to place a long probe deep inside the sinus through the hole. His major diagnosis was a Maxillary Sinus Fistula (hole into the sinus). I have included the hospital records. (Sa8A, Sa8B, Sa8C, Sa8D)

On October 27, 2000 two days after Dr. Salman indicated he thought the hole was closed, I had photographs taken of the hole. I have enclosed two photographs, the one on the left showing the hole on December 1, 1999 after the damage by Dr. Berube and the one on the right showing the hole right after the surgery by Dr. Salman.

I still had the same sinus fistula with all the same irritation and infection. I immediately sent this information to Massachusetts General Hospital so that it was clear that it could become an issue in the event Dr. Salman tried to contend he had closed it but it reopened. One of the best arguments to defeat my claim against Dr. Gerald Berube would be that the fistula kept opening and would have occurred no matter what Berube did in the surgery and in the follow up care and treatment.

On January 29, 2001 I filed a complaint against Dr. Salah Salman with the Massachusetts Board of Registration in Medicine setting forth the above information. The Board did not perform an investigation, and dismissed the complaint. I sent the same information to the Massachusetts Office of Attorney General and was informed that the Attorney General did not have any jurisdiction over medical professionals and that the only recourse was through the Board of Medicine.


I could not get anyone to close the sinus fistula (hole). I had tried on several occasions to continue with Dr. Paul C. Kuo but he kept putting me off as to any surgery. I sent copies of some of this material to my insurance provider indicating that I could not get anyone to close the fistula and that I had made several unsuccessful attempts to have Dr. Kuo continue as he had indicated in his letter to me of May 28, 1999. (Ku1A, Ku1B)

I received a letter from Healthsource indicating I would soon be contacted by Dr. Kuo to arrange surgery to close the sinus fistula and within about a week of sending the material, Dr. Kuo's office called for an in office surgery which was scheduled for June 4, 2001. During the surgery it was clear he was definitely not pleased with being contacted by Healthsource nor doing the surgery to close the sinus fistula. I was conscious during the surgery which took about 90 minutes. There was one procedure that stuck in my mind which I later would wish had not been done. After he opened the area, he used a scraping tool inside and at the base of the sinus cavity next to the root of a tooth. It was obvious he was scraping bone as he jerked my head at times. I found it odd as the fistula itself was at the top of the sinus cavity not the bottom. He recommended I use an over the counter decongestant on a regular basis for the time being and any time I felt any activity in the area. Again I later discovered I should not have followed his directions so faithfully.

As a result of the information I released during this time, including that sent to Healthsource it became general knowledge that almost from the beginning I had been going to emergency rooms to get medical tests and diagnoses to compare with the treatment and tests received through regular scheduled appointments.

The week of April 18, 2003, when I ran on my wife's treadmill for the first time since the surgery, a large sac of fluid settled into the lower part of the upper right gum. As it was similar to what happened in the prior leakage of the sinus in the fistula I was certain of the cause. After getting the sac reduced, I inspected the whole area with my fingers and discovered there had been a large amount of bone loss in the whole area beyond what had occurred in the prior sinus fistula infection. The sinus membrane at the bottom of the sinus evidently had been open allowing the sinus fluid with bacteria to eat and absorb the bone. The bacteria gives off toxins which numb the area of infection. The bacteria had been eating the bone for some time in the upper gum and bone and had worked through the bone between the bone and gum. The jogging brought the infected fluid all down where I noticed it. The original sinus fistula was at the top of the sinus and this was a new area of damage which I now suspect resulted from the scraping by Dr. Kuo of the bottom of the sinus tearing open the sinus membrane. I then read a treatise on perforated sinus membranes, and it advised against the use of decongestants especially for more than three days and on a regular basis when there is a tear in the sinus membrane at the base of the sinus. The the sinus fluid becomes very viscous (sticky) making it very difficult for the natural removal of the sinus fluid and collected bacteria.

I enclose again a copy of the CT Scan results taken at Massachusetts Eye and Ear on October 29, 1998. It clearly indicates the sinus fistula hole into the right maxillary sinus is on the inferior lateral/side wall. (Be6K)

I also enclose a copy of a new CT Scan results taken at Cottage Hospital on June 9, 2003. It indicates a defect in the floor of the right maxillary antrum/cavity about 7-8mm in width and about 20mm in length. However the laying on my back and the antibiotics prescribed by my primary care physician were evidently sufficient to result in a soft tissue closure however with still some air. (Bek)

The bone loss and infection were far more than first thought and it was spreading into my ear and down my neck. On April 18, 2003 after a telephone discussion of the problem with a long time friend who is aware of these events, I decided as a number of times previously, to randomly select a hospital out of the area and go to the emergency room for help.

If you look at the letter from Dr. Kuo and a part of the diagnosis by Surgeon, Mark F. Rounds (also from Massachusetts Eye & Ear Infirmary as Salah Salman), the closing of this type of sinus fistula at the top of the cavity is a relatively simple and successful procedure which can be done in the dentist's office. (Ku2)


I drove to Morrisville Vermont and went to the emergency room at Copley Hospital at about 5:00 P.M. Friday, April 18, 2003. I have included the letter sent to the President of the hospital and the request for copies of my records which set out much of the details. The only thing to add is that when the doctor left and came back the second time he specifically asked me if I wanted any pain killers and I said no, I can handle the pain. (Co1A, Co1B, Co1C, Co1D)

Now emergency room staff were refusing to look at or accept copies of my records and no tests were being done. I would not have tests and diagnoses from the emergency room to compare to any further treatment and diagnoses from regularly scheduled appointments. A friend who is a former police officer said it had all the markings of being targeted for trying to procure controlled drugs.

I sent the letter and copy of records request by certified mail which was accepted on behalf of the hospital on May 8, 2003. Although by law I am entitled to copies of my records as held at Copley Hospital as of June 11, 2003, I have not received a response to my letter or copies of my records. Does this sound familiar?


As the result of surgery performed by Dr. Stephen Rous on or about August 14, 1995, my left scrotal area and left testicle were so swollen and inflamed that I could barely walk. As I was not receiving any treatment from him for this condition, I decided to see another Urology surgeon. I enclose a copy of a portion of the report on the condition of the testicle as evaluated by Kristen Carney, PA from the same hospital as Dr. Rous which was just prior to seeing Dr. Zafiropoulos. (Za1)

On June 25, 1998 I completed the medical history on which I indicated allergic reaction to Tetracycline. Dr. Pan Zafiropoulos after a physical examination, gave me a requisition form to go across the street to Deaconess Waltham Hospital upon which he set out all the tests he requested. Although he could select an ultrasound and numerous other tests, he only selected X-rays of the scrotum area. (Za2)

I hand carried the X-rays back and he placed them up on his screen and after review of the X-rays, he advised that he did not see infection or anything of a serious nature affecting the left testicle. He said it was swelling which would go down without further treatment. Nevertheless, he gave me a prescription for Doxycline. He rescheduled me for an appointment for August 5, 1998. When I went to the pharmacy, where upon inquiry I indicated allergy to Tetracycline and they said I should not be taking Doxycline. When my condition did not improve, I inspected the appointment card to cancel and found that on the back he had listed in office ultrasounds. (Za3)

When I discussed this with a friend who had been a radiologist for many years, he indicated X-rays are not used for soft tissue evaluations and he could not understand why he sent me to the hospital for X-rays when he could have either performed an ultrasound in the office or ordered it at the hospital. To be certain I obtained all of the hospital records, I repeatedly requested copies of all my records from Deaconess Waltham Hospital and in response to my letter of April 5, 1999, they wrote that for further records I would have to request Dr. Zafiropoulos' records. (Za4)

I made three separate demands for copies of my records from Zafiropoulos but he refused to send me a copy of the medical history intake form that I completed.

He made entries in my records after my request trying to make it appear he had requested other tests which should have been done at the first evaluation. (Za5)

But he only listed X-rays on the hospital requisition form.

Upon review of the X-rays obtained from the hospital, they did not show my scrotum or testicles. (Za6)

Although he could not see the testicle to make any valid evaluation, he deceived me with his false evaluation of the X-rays. I have included the ultrasound report from Cottage Hospital on 7/23/98 shortly after the Zafiropoulos examination to show there were potential problems that should have been addressed or at least explained by Zafiropoulos. (Za7)

I filed a complaint with the Massachusetts Board of Registration in Medicine on April 5, 1999 and also requested that they make him comply with State law and their rules and send me a copy my medical history intake. A patient's files by state law and the Board's own rules, belong to the patient who is entitled to copies of such records. The Board refused to investigate, refused to direct him to comply with the law on release of records. My complaint was dismissed.

Is it beginning to appear that there are very different rules (more lenient) for doctors and dentists?