Free Errata - District Court of Colorado - Colorado

Case 1:04-cv-01849-MSK-MEH

Document 357

Filed 03/25/2006

Page 1 of 20

Exhibit I

Exhibit I

Case 1:04-cv-01849-MSK-MEH

Document 357

Filed 03/25/2006

Page 2 of 20

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 04-cv-01849-MSK-MEH CAVITAT MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC. Plaintiff, v. AETNA, INC., Defendant ______________________________________________________________________________ Declaration of Robert J. Jones in Support of Cavitat's Response to Aetna Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment (DKT# 257`) 28 U.S.C. § 1746 ______________________________________________________________________________ I, ROBERT J. JONES, declare as follows: 1. I am over the age of 18 years and could and would testify to the matters set forth

herein based upon my own personal knowledge if called upon. 2. I am the President and Chief Executive officer of Plaintiff, CAVITAT MEDICAL

TECHNOLOGIES, INC. (hereinafter referred to as "Cavitat" or "Plaintiff"). 3. I am the inventor and patent holder of the medical device known as the

CAVITAT. Along with my wife, Sarah, I founded CAVITAT MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 4. The history of Cavitat starts when in 1985 I was an airline pilot flying on the West

Coast when I became ill and had to quit flying. My illness had a slow continuing progression and eventually in spite of consulting many doctors of different specialties I became more disabled

Case 1:04-cv-01849-MSK-MEH

Document 357

Filed 03/25/2006

Page 3 of 20

and had to go on Social Security Disability. I continued to search for doctors who could help me and that search eventually led me in about 1992 to Dr. Scott McAdoo, a dentist in Denver. He diagnosed me as having alveolar osteomyelitis and explained this condition to me. I had not been aware of this condition or related diseases until that time. Dental surgery was performed and I began the long road to recovery. 5. Dr. McAdoo explained to me that osteonecrotic lesions most often could not be

detected on traditional x-ray devices until they became quite large and he told me something needed to be developed for imaging of the jaw bone. This challenged my interest which developed into a passion for studying, researching, and talking to countless people that were suffering from similar conditions and were unable to receive accurate diagnosis because there was no definitive medical device that could accurately detect these condition. Having an engineering background, I was able to develop a prototype that was able to detect osteonecrotic jaw bone lesions. My invention would ultimately encouraging me to develop what became known as the CAVITAT. 6. 2001. 7. The device performs an ultrasonic image of Alvelor Process that has been applied I applied for and was awarded a patent in early 2000 and additional patents in

to determine if there is a measurable necrosis (or hollow pockets) in jaw bones. The development of the CAVITAT was hailed as a breakthrough in dental technology. Prior to its development, no imaging device had been available for assisting dentists and physicians in precise determination of necrosis. 8. I developed the initial concept, performed initial research and built a prototype at 2

Case 1:04-cv-01849-MSK-MEH

Document 357

Filed 03/25/2006

Page 4 of 20

my home. In 1996 I arranged with my friend Dr. William Lyon, Professor of Petroleum Engineering and Mechanical Engineering, for a graduate student project to be performed at the Engineering Design Clinic at New Mexico Institute of Mining & Technology in Socorro to test my concept. The testing was performed on the jaw bones of pigs purchased from a packing plant. The initial study verified my earlier concept and research and worked perfectly. The next year while Dr. Lyons was on loan to the Air Force Academy at Colorado Springs he did a further project that additionally verified my concept. 9. Following this proof of concept I began working with Jim Gordon to develop

a"Bob Jones" designed CAV64 pulse multiplexor circuit board and a 64 element receiving array and continued to use a circuit board Jim Gordon had designed. At this same time I began to work with Hari Polu to design a Windows based software aptly named Win-Cav. 10. In 1998 - I contacted a number of friends and associates about purchasing a

CAVITAT Generation 3 to be used for field trial/ergonomic studies by these doctors. The units were sold at below cost. The safety of the sound wave was demonstrated to be so safe in the New Mexico testing that it was classified in the bottom 10% of FDA safety standards on allowable ionizing radiation, therefore not requiring an IRB or exemption. 11. In late 1999 I traveled to Dr. Jerry Bouquot's office in West Virginia where we

performed CAVITAT scans on cadaver jawbones in his lab. Dr. Bouquot has an ongoing study and the most recent segment was performed in October 2005. 12. From Dr. Bouquot's we approached several doctors' offices in New York State

and Vermont and performed field trials. Beginning in late November 1999 we delivered the first Generation 3 units to the doctors who were to do the field trials; Dr. Colpitts, Dr. Glaros, Dr. 3

Case 1:04-cv-01849-MSK-MEH

Document 357

Filed 03/25/2006

Page 5 of 20

Medlock, Dr. Evans, Dr. Allen Sprinkle. In early 2000 Generation 3 units were delivered to Dr. Nick Meyer and Dr. Tony Roeder. 13. During 2000 modifications were made to the original Generation 3 as suggested

by the fields trials, different Bob Jones designed Generation 4 computer boards and receiver were designed with more pixels and we prepared to take the CAVITAT to the FDA for approval and clearance to market. 14. The CAVITAT was extremely well received by those who tested it and it was

hailed as a breakthrough technology in the field of dentistry that had the potential of being a new emerging technology capable of providing dentists with the ability to detect conditions that were not able to be detected before the CAVITAT. There was across the board enthusiasm for the CAVITAT. 15. My wife and I had invested all of our life savings, retirement stock options

amounting to approximately $200,000, raised $350,000 from investors, borrowed $350,000 and sold most of our assets in order to fund Cavitat. We invested virtually everything that we had. 16. During 2000 and 2001 a number of investment banking firms and venture

capitalists were approached about funding our company. The consensus was that once there was FDA approval there would be much excitement in the market and sales potential because the CAVITAT was such new innovative technology that could create a new standard for the dental industry 17. There are approximately 150,000 dentist in this country and the CAVITAT had

the potential of being as useful diagnostic tool for all dentists. There was no other device like it. Some consultants had projected that our sales could exceed $100 million per year. 4

Case 1:04-cv-01849-MSK-MEH

Document 357

Filed 03/25/2006

Page 6 of 20

18.

We moved into our first Colorado office in September 2000 and went into limited

production of the Generation 4 model. 19. Application was made to the FDA in March 2001 with a full independent clinical

study prepared by Dr. Bouquot from data received from doctors using the CAVITAT. In August of 2001 a personal CAVITAT presentation was made to the FDA at their headquarters in Maryland attended by Dr. Bouquot, Dr. Haley, Dr. Shankland, Larry Pilot, Stuart Kim (lawyer with Mr. Pilot) Bob and Sarah Jones and about 9 FDA employees. Several months later Dr.

Bouquot made a follow up presentation of all of the Independent clinical trial data to the FDA at their request. No Cavitat employees were present. Clearance was received from the FDA on February 15, 2002. A 510(k) is supposed to take sixty days but took 18 months because the CAVITAT was so totally new technology that the FDA was trying to classify it appropriately as DeNova regulations but it was finally decided it would be appropriate to do a 5l0(k) because there were absolutely no safety issues involved. It is classified as an intra-oral x-ray and we were asked to call it an Ultrasonograph [beyond normal] and not a sonograph. 20. During 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003 CAVITAT demonstrated at numerous

medical/dental conferences throughout the United States. In late 2000 and continuing through 2001 we began in-house conferences and owners meetings to share information about the use of the CAVITAT and the diseases and treatments. These events were so well received that in 2002 we began holding conferences in larger facilities. We applied for and were accepted and certified by the American Academy of General Dentistry, of the American Dental Association, to give Continuing Education credits for these seminars [PACE program]. 21. Our progress and success was exciting and until we were inexplicably attacked by 5

Case 1:04-cv-01849-MSK-MEH

Document 357

Filed 03/25/2006

Page 7 of 20

Aetna on their website with what was known as Policy Bulletin 642. The attacks also continued on a website known as Quackwatch.com. 22. Aetna's bulletin cites and quotes liberally and literally from a defamatory

publication of the self-appointed crusading website www.Quackwatch.com ("Quackwatch") called the Dodes and Schissel paper initially authored by general dentists Robert Dodes and Marvin Schissel and revised substantially by a retired psychiatrist, Dr. Stephen Barrett ("Barrett"), the operator of the website. The paper is not a peer reviewed published scientific paper and contains no references to any scientific studies or authorities. The commentary further states that medical and dental professionals who diagnose and treat NICO - and use the CAVITAT ultrasound - are engaging in consumer and insurance fraud because the disease according to them does not exist. Although Aetna's CPB does not repeat this statement of insurance fraud, it implies such conduct in its bulletin and cites to the Quackwatch paper which does make that statement, which also posts the dismissed counterclaim. 23. Aetna has used Quackwatch , Barrett and Dr. Robert Baratz to advance their

malicious and destructive discreditation and orchestrated boycott campaign against Cavitat by means of the internet and false complaints of illegality or miscoding to various regulatory authorities. We are convinced that these acts are carefully orchestrated schemes and plans by Aetna to harass, intimidate and falsely prosecute CAVITAT owners and prospective customers and misuse State regulatory agencies to act on false information in order to improperly deny thousands of insurance claims. 24. Aetna officials who composed CPB 642 (in-house Drs. McDonough and

Koumaras) as well as Quackwatch authors Barrett, Dodes, and Quackwatch "scientific adviser" 6

Case 1:04-cv-01849-MSK-MEH

Document 357

Filed 03/25/2006

Page 8 of 20

Dr. Robert Baratz conclusively determined that Aetna made no attempt to conduct any meaningful due diligence in determining the truthfulness or falsity of the factual statements about the CAVITAT ultrasound device, about NICO, or about the leading scientific authority on the disease, Dr. Jerry Bouquot, before it republished the defamatory statements from Quackwatch. Quackwatch authors themselves, Barrett, Dodes, and Baratz, confirmed that they had conducted no due diligence to determine the accuracy and truthfulness - or falsity - of the statements contained in the Dodes and Schissel paper. Had Aetna questioned Barrett, Dodes, Baratz, or Schissel prior to Aetna's publication of CPB 642, it would have found this out. Barrett and Dodes testified that they had never obtained permission from Dr. Schissel, the alleged co-author of the defamatory paper, to publish the Quackwatch internet version and Dr. Schissel has disassociated himself with the publication of the paper and his former dental partner, Dr. Dodes. Since the lawsuit and his deposition, Dr. Barrett has also removed the defamatory statements about Dr. Bouquot that Aetna to this day continues to publish in its CPB 642. Aetna has refused Cavitat's demands that it remove the bulletin from its website or at least restrict access from the general public. 25. We have now found out in discovery from this case that Aetna's internal

communications of the Aetna officials who composed CPB 642 had ulterior motives in discrediting the CAVITAT. Those records and, more importantly, the depositions of Aetna's inhouse medical officials who composed the bulletin, establish that, at the time Aetna decided it needed a bulletin on NICO and the CAVITAT ultrasound, it already had an informal policy of categorically denying any coverage for any service related to the treatment of NICO. The deposition established that rather than taking an objective look at the science, Aetna's officials 7

Case 1:04-cv-01849-MSK-MEH

Document 357

Filed 03/25/2006

Page 9 of 20

searched for any publications which would justify a denial of coverage of NICO and the CAVITAT and used the only thing they could find, the Quackwatch site's crusading defamatory publication of the Dodes and Schissel paper. Ironically, the only other references cited by Aetna in its initial CPB publication were to the FDA approval of the 510(k) clearance and papers by Dr. Bouquot from scientific journals and abstracts of clinical studies which scientifically affirmed the condition of NICO and the efficacy of the CAVITAT as an oral bone imaging device. 26. We believe that Aetna wanted to avoid in any way it could any precedence of

NICO coverage as the treatment of the condition sometimes involves the removal of the teeth above the diseased bone, the removal of the diseased bone, and the insertion of implants or bridges - relatively expensive treatments for widespread dental conditions. Aetna is seemingly attempting to avoid or at least delay in any way it can - including the intellectually and scientifically dishonest statements of the bulletin and its strategy in this litigation - what could be an extremely large and permanent insurance liability to its insureds for treatment of the condition which could result in hundreds of millions of dollars in claims. It is obvious to us that Aetna's strategy to discredit and destroy CAVITAT's reputation and engage in this litigation that throwing a few million dollars at a strike lawsuit to intimate and defeat or delay a finding of liability is a wise investment, even though it effectively deprives its insureds and millions of other patients suffering from this serious and sometimes painful disease from receiving proper medical care and treatment. I believe that Aetna is attempting to prevent the CAVITAT from being a standard in the industry capable of providing necessary images for aiding in diagnosis and treatment of thousands of people suffering from a previously undetectable or not easily detectable medical conditions. Aetna's motive is clearly designed to prevent the CAVITAT from 8

Case 1:04-cv-01849-MSK-MEH

Document 357

Filed 03/25/2006

Page 10 of 20

being in any way mainstreamed and a medical standard. 27. Aetna has associated Cavitat with its attack upon the world's leading expert on

NICO, Dr. Jerry Bouquot, who is a highly respected oral pathologist and the Chairman of the Department of Diagnostics Sciences at the University of Texas Medical School in Houston. Dr. Bouquot has been a senior research scientist in Europe and at the Mayo Clinic and has over 200 scientific publications in peer-reviewed journals including over 40 papers on NICO and several on clinical studies involving thousands of CAVITAT ultrasounds. Dr. Bouquot is also co-author of the textbook that is used in over 90% of the oral pathology classes in American medical schools. The textbook contains a section on NICO in which the condition is described and images of the diseased condition are shown to future dentists, oral surgeons, and oral pathologists. 28. The co-author of the textbook with Dr. Bouquot is Dr. Carl Allen, Chairman of

the Oral Pathology Department at the Ohio State University College of Dentistry, who, for example, was qualified as an expert on NICO and testified as to the existence of the condition in Summerfield v. Ohio State Dental Bd., 1999 WL 3972, *2 (Ohio App. 1998). NICO is also diagnosed and treated by hundreds if not thousands of medical professionals including, prominently, Dr. Susan Zunt, Chairperson of the Department of Oral Pathology at the University of Indiana School of Dentistry, and Dr. Michael Rohrer, Director of the Division of Oral and Maxillofacial Pathology at the University of Minnesota School of Dentistry, and President of the national organization of oral pathologists, the American Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Pathology, of which Dr. Bouquot is also a diplomat. Drs. Bouquot, Zunt, and Rohrer are our experts on NICO and, along with the information of oral surgeon Dr. Wesley Shankland, Dr. 9

Case 1:04-cv-01849-MSK-MEH

Document 357

Filed 03/25/2006

Page 11 of 20

Thomas Colpitts, Dr. William Glaros, radiologist Dr. Richard Kukulka, and endodontist Dr. William Adams confirm the existence, recognition, diagnosis, and treatment of the condition of NICO in the medical community and the scientific studies and peer-reviewed scientific publications confirming the existence of the condition. 29. Dr. Wesley Shankland is an oral surgeon, scientific researcher, and one of the

world's leading experts on the clinical use of the CAVITAT ultrasound device. Along with Dr. Bouquot, Dr. Colpitts, Dr. Glaros, and Dr. Kukulka, and others, he has presented and published scientific papers and abstracts on the use of the CAVITAT in imaging bone conditions and its use in the diagnosis of NICO and NICO-related conditions. His clinical studies have involved thousands CAVITAT images, the accuracy of which have been confirmed by biopsies examined by oral pathologist, Dr. Bouquot, and by MRIs by radiologist, Dr. Kukulka. The expert reports on the CAVITAT and its clinical significance by Drs. Shankland, Bouquot, and Kukulka have confirmed our clinical science. The use and effectiveness of the CAVITAT as a medical imaging device has been further confirmed by plaintiff's ultrasound expert, Dr. Thomas Szabo, after he reviewed the technology of the device, science of the diseased conditions, and examined and used the device itself. Dr. Szabo is a research scientist at the University of Boston who also wrote the textbook on ultrasound imaging. 30. As to Aetna's defamatory statements regarding the FDA review of the CAVITAT,

Drs. Bouquot and Shankland presented extensive testimony to the FDA in the FDA review of the CAVITAT ultrasound device - including the voluminous clinical studies involving thousands of CAVITAT images. After a lengthy review, FDA approved a 510(k) clearance of the device as a device to image bone condition. Our FDA expert, Phillip J. Phillips, has 24 years experience 10

Case 1:04-cv-01849-MSK-MEH

Document 357

Filed 03/25/2006

Page 12 of 20

with the FDA, leaving the agency in 2005. He was at the time of our review a Deputy Director with the FDA Office of Device Evaluation. Mr. Phillips reviewed FDA records on the CAVITAT and concluded that, contrary to the statement of Aetna in its bulletin, "the effectiveness data submitted to the FDA was of a level generally required for a PMA application." 31. Almost immediately after we found out about the postings, our sales inquiries

plummeted and we were constantly challenged as being frauds and that we lacked FDA approval. This was, and is, a complete lie. 32. I found Aetna's statements hard to believe and unwarranted since I had never been

contacted by anyone from Aetna asking about the CAVITAT and its approvals or technology. To this day, nobody from Aetna has ever contacted me about the technology of the CAVITAT. I can't begin to understand how Aetna could make its statements without having any knowledge of the device or performing any sort of investigation. Nor did Aetna ever purchase any device for testing or use. Dr. McDonough did not contact Cavitat for any information regarding the CAVITAT, its technology, or clinical studies involving the use of the CAVITAT as an imaging device. 33. I am informed by this lawsuit that Aetna relied on an article that was published on

the website known as Quackwatch, a medical vigilante organization that publishes biased opinions and views regarding certain medical practices, including alternative medicine. Its leader, Dr. Stephen Barrett, who touts himself as a medical expert, is himself a de-bunked unqualified spokesman that has not had a medical license for over ten years and profits from being used as a consultant and expert to testify and opine against those people and companies 11

Case 1:04-cv-01849-MSK-MEH

Document 357

Filed 03/25/2006

Page 13 of 20

that he attacks. It is now known that Aetna relied on articles published by Barrett and Quackwatch to justify its denial of millions of dollars in claims. 34. There are approximately 135 peer-reviewed articles and abstracts and other

scientific evidence that support the clinical value of the CAVITAT. A list of the articles and abstracts is attached as Exhibit "A" to the Motion. It is incomprehensible, false and misleading by Aetna to post information on an internet site that the CAVITAT was not what it purports to be. The CAVITAT is an imaging device that produces an image (a picture). 35. The CAVITAT is not a self-diagnosing instrument, but rather an imaging device

that creates three dimensional images which are used by medical professionals to assist in their various examinations of patients. Diagnosis is the function of the medical professional. The CAVITAT was intended for and is used exclusively to produce an image. 36. Aetna has not, and cannot, dispute that the CAVITAT produces an accurate image

of bones. However, Aetna has used half-truths, innuendo and all out false statements to mislead the public into believing that the CAVITAT is a fraudulent unapproved device. We have been subjected to a media blitz and campaign to encourage the boycotting of the CAVITAT for not other apparent purpose but to allow Aetna to deny thousands of claims for necessary medical diseases. 37. The malicious attacks by Quackwatch and Aetna were devastating for the

company. Our sales dropped by more than 70% and eventually down to nothing since the Counter-Claim was filed and Aetna began its campaign to attack dentist who purchased the CAVITAT around the country. Every where we went to attempt to market the product we were asked about Aetna and Quackwatch's false information. 12

Case 1:04-cv-01849-MSK-MEH

Document 357

Filed 03/25/2006

Page 14 of 20

38.

As part of their further malicious attempts to discredit Cavitat, Aetna filed a

counterclaim in this case, which was widely published by Quackwatch and throughout the internet, which falsely asserts that Drs. Bouquot and Shankland are the ring leaders in a worldwide scheme of alternative medicine fanatics to commit insurance fraud by submitting miscoded insurance claims disguising NICO-related services. Aetna named prominent medical researchers and numerous other medical professionals - including Dr. Boyd Haley, Chairman of the Department of Chemistry at the University of Kentucky, as part of this purported insurance fraud conspiracy. Aetna's scurrilous attacks have extended to the hundreds, if not thousands, of unnamed and prominent medical and dental professionals who diagnose and treat NICO, including Drs. Allen, Zunt, Rohrer, Colpitts, Glaros, Kukulka, Adams, and the many other coauthors of peer-reviewed scientific articles confirming the existence of NICO. The Counterclaim, even though it has been dismissed, continues to be published on the internet by Aetna's surrogates in or to create internet traffic in order to advance Aetna's boycotting campaign against Cavitat. 39. To this day, Aetna has used the Quackwatch principals to attack the CAVITAT

and post the Counter-Claim, which is a vicious attack on myself and my associates, on the internet. The pages of the Quackwatch site have been used to discredit dentists and deny hundred, if not thousands of insurance claims. Even Aetna's attorney have attempted to intimidate our clients and customers into believing that they will be prosecuted for crimes or lose their license. 40. We continued holding conferences through 2003 even in the face of the

worldwide posting on the internet of Aetna's Clinical Policy Bulletin 642. That was always an 13

Case 1:04-cv-01849-MSK-MEH

Document 357

Filed 03/25/2006

Page 15 of 20

issue that had to be explained to interested purchasers, patients wanting their doctor to purchase a unit and to potential investors. Further venture capital contacts, SBA loan applications, bank applications or private individual investments (other than by personal friends) were only a waste of time at this point even though we had FDA clearance. At about this same time period when CAVITAT was typed into a world wide web search engine, the first listing for a long time was Aetna's maliciously written CPB 642 with a hyperlink to Aetna's agents, the Quackwatch, Dr. Barrett, Dr. Baratz and National Council Against Healthcare Fraud and Dental Watch who further slandered and defamed the CAVITAT. This in itself is direct tortuous interference with our customer base. The importance is that if a large insurance company refuses to pay for a procedure because it is investigational and experimental in their CPB this limits the income of the doctor and main stream dentists and doctors refuse to purchase. If insurance won't pay, many patients are reluctant to have it done because they don't want to pay for it and/or they believe the good and trusted insurance company [sic] must have some valid reason for not buying for it. 41. In August 2003 we began meetings with attorneys in Denver concerning the

damage Aetna's Clinical Policy Bulletin was doing to our business and discussed a possible lawsuit. 42. By early 2004 it became painfully evident that the malicious Aetna Clinical Policy

Bulletin 642 had been further complemented by Dental Board actions by several states against CAVITAT owners all quoting the Aetna Clinical Policy Bulletin as the reason for holding a license revocation hearing. Word of this further action of defamation of the CAVITAT by instigating Board actions raced through the medical/dental community like wildfire totally 14

Case 1:04-cv-01849-MSK-MEH

Document 357

Filed 03/25/2006

Page 16 of 20

decimating sales. No one wants to buy a piece of medial equipment if he has to pay lawyers to fight Aetna and the State Boards for the right to use an FDA cleared device and remain in practice. 43. In February 2004 Citywide Bank with whom we had a revolving line of credit of

$350,000 fully secured with cash CDs and a second mortgage on our house called our note. The bank board said the controversy created by Aetna's CPB and their agents Dr. Barrett, Dr. Baratz, QW, NCAHF hyperlinks made a credit line too risky. This wiped out all of our cash reserves. This was devastating and we decided we had to file this lawsuit. 44. Sales had so declined by mid-2003 that when our first office lease terminated, we

moved to other leased offices with one-third the floor space, laid off employees and only signed a one-year lease. At the end of that year we were not able to find any space in Denver at all

suitable in our budget range. We were at our house on Lake Fork in Texas in September 2004 and found a space affordable and decided in a desperate move to keep the company alive in the face of decimated sales to move to Texas and build units only on a custom basis. 45. Just before this move, on August 13, 2004, we filed the lawsuit against Aetna for

defamation, etc. During this time from August 2004 to present intense pressure has been exerted on current Cavitat owners and witnesses, our Scientific Board and vendors. By taking action against our vendors it makes it unprofitable for them to do work for us i.e. answering subpoenas, producing records, etc. One vendor even told us that if I'm subpoenaed and incur any expense I will stop doing any work for you, period. 46. Aetna has also attempt to mislead this Court and the public into believing that we

are part of some insurance fraud. This is completely and utterly false. Cavitat has made no 15

Case 1:04-cv-01849-MSK-MEH

Document 357

Filed 03/25/2006

Page 17 of 20

insurance claims of any sort to Aetna or any other insurance company. Cavitat does not provide medical services or sell equipment to the general public. 47. Despite it lack of truth, Aetna's unproven insurance fraud allegations have been

widely published by the crusading Quackwatch on the internet further decimating the market for the CAVITAT ultrasound device by frightening existing and future purchasers and users of the device that they too may be subjected to civil or even criminal charges of insurance fraud as well as potential disciplinary proceedings by state licensing boards for the diagnosis or treatment of NICO or the use of the CAVITAT. These published, unproven and scandalous allegations regarding numerous non-parties potential witnesses to this litigation have severely prejudiced and frustrated Cavitat's prosecution of its meritorious claims against Aetna - the obvious goal of Aetna's strategy. Aetna has further published these insurance fraud allegations in the approximately 100 openly intimidating subpoenas duces tecum it has served on medical and dental professionals who diagnose and treat NICO, including plaintiff's experts and even the employers of plaintiff's experts, causing them great concern and distress. 48. The CAVITAT does not treat NICO. This is absurd, since the CAVITAT is an

imaging device. If a medical professions utilizes the CAVITAT it is to produce an image for that dentist or physician to interpret to his/her experience and training. The CAVITAT does not treat any medical condition. 49. Aetna itself has stated that it believes that there will be thousand of claims if the

CAVITAT is allowed to continue in existence. Aetna's own people have estimated that each claim for medical services could exceed $100,000 per patient. It is clear to me that Aetna and its shareholders greatly profit if they are able to take the CAVITAT off the market so that they could 16

Case 1:04-cv-01849-MSK-MEH

Document 357

Filed 03/25/2006

Page 18 of 20

categorically avoid coverage of diseased people and their untreated conditions are undetected because dentist do not have the medical tools that image such conditions, particularly when the diseased condition exists in a high percentage of the population worldwide and resulting treatment is expensive. 50. The final blow to us was when Aetna filed the Counter-Claim which was full of

half-truths and all out lies. That Counter-Claim was posted on Quackwatch with commentaries that scared off any prospective buyer. The Cross-Complaint is still posted on the web and the Quackwatch principal, Dr. Stephen Barrett has used his personal lawyer, David Wilzig, to obtain confidential documents and trade secrets by means of "friendly subpoenas" to Aetna in this case. Thereafter, the information was almost immediately posted on the internet. Aetna is now seeking to obtain all of the proprietary trade secret designs from our software and hardware designers in Virginia, which we are extremely fearful that it will be posted on the internet, thereby making all the designs public and valueless. 51. Since CPB 642 was posted, Cavitat is near bankruptcy and we have lost almost

everything. Cavitat has been financially ruined and we are on the verge of bankruptcy and live on social security. The reputation of the CAVITAT has been so damaged that we are unable to sell anymore because dentists are not afraid even to talk to us, much less buy a unit. More importantly, hundreds of thousands of diseased people will now be deprived of having a medical device that assist their dentist in diagnosing serious medical conditions.

17

Case 1:04-cv-01849-MSK-MEH

Document 357

Filed 03/25/2006

Page 19 of 20

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United Sates of America that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on March 24, 2006 in Emory in the State of Texas.

_________s/Robert J. Jones_____ ROBERT J. JONES

18

Case 1:04-cv-01849-MSK-MEH

Document 357

Filed 03/25/2006

Page 20 of 20

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that on this 24th day of March, 2006, he electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the following e-mail address: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] A copy of the foregoing document was also e-mailed this day to: Bob Jones at [email protected] Cavitat Medical Technologies, Inc. at [email protected]

______/s/ Carlos F. Negrete__________________

19