Dr. Shang's Cover-up Attempts Continue:
It has come to my attention that a new website can be found at: barbarashangmd.com.
I am confident that as officers of the court, none of you had any knowledge of this website or any role in creating it. I am sending this to you as a professional courtesy. Also, because "Clients" are represented by counsel on appeal, I have and will continue to refrain from contacting either of them directly to inquire whether they created the website. However, given the content of the website, I have little doubt who created it.
Please also note, that I intend to bring this to Judge Bauer’s attention via a declaration, I intend to raise this issue at the upcoming hearing, and we are reserving all rights to seek and pursue all remedies related to this matter. Finally, because I cannot communicate directly with plaintiffs, I will also demand, in open court, that plaintiffs not destroy any evidence related to the website’s creation and funding.
Kenneth R. Pedroza, Attorney
2670 Mission Street
San Marino, CA 91108
RESPONSE: March 4, 2017
Dear Mr. Kenneth Pedroza, Dr. Barabar Ya sui Shang, Robert McKenna, Benjamin Ikuta, and Roy Kim,
We are in receipt of your emailed communication regarding a new website, dated evening of February 28, 2017.
This website's legitimate purpose is to notify and educate the public about Dr. Shang's healthcare caused infections (HCI) , and is as a practical matter an exercise of free speech rights. As this HCI happened to this client as well as dozens of others, this website serves a very legitimate purpose to educate the public on these health risks at an ophthalmology exam.
Clients are definitely deeply distressed and disappointed by Dr. Shang's intransigence and refusal to properly notify the patients involved in these exposures as well as the concerted unequivocal concealment by Dr. Shang.
There are insurmountable emotional distress and physical injuries resulting from Dr. Shang's continued concealment. If Dr. Shang feels there are things on the website that are not accurate, or that she would like to discuss changes, then we may consider such dialogue. This informational medical malpractice site will stay up and will expand to include additional information for the public benefit.
After what these clients have gone through, there is an ethical responsibility to, and
as a public service there is a need to educate and inform the public and other patients with ophthalmology diseases. Moreover, there is a need to educate the public about potential complications and long lasting damages from Dr. Shang’s office born infection issue.
This website will serve as a public way to disseminate information and prevent further public harm. Future patients will be helped by this public information. If there is anything that is not in the spirit of helpful and truthful information to the public, please do respond with the items that are not in the interest of the common.
It is unfortunate that this has happened and caused everyone unnecessary emotional, physical, and financial distress. If it is the desire of the parties to resolve these matters to fairness to all involved, you may wish to redirect your inquiry to that goal.
Your correspondence and unveiled threats of judicial action this week through the Court's hearing on an unrelated matter, pose the precise danger of prior restraint identified in Pittsburgh Press Co. v. The Pittsburgh Commission on Human Relations (1973) 413 U.S. 376 (Pittsburgh Press Co.); that is, "the special vice . . . that communication will be suppressed, either directly or by inducing excessive caution in the speaker, before an adequate determination that it is unprotected by the First Amendment." (Id. at p. 390.) Further, as the United States Supreme Court pointed out in Snyder v. Phelps (2011) 562 U.S. —— [131 S.Ct. 1207] (Snyder), "speech cannot be restricted simply because it is upsetting or arouses contempt. 'If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.' [Citation.] Indeed, 'the point of all speech protection . . . is to shield just those choices of content that in someone's eyes are misguided, or even hurtful.' [Citation.]" (Id. at p. 1219.) Furthermore, "[i]n most circumstances, 'the Constitution does not permit the government to decide which types of otherwise protected speech are sufficiently offensive to require protection for the unwilling listener or viewer. Rather, . . . the burden normally falls upon the viewer to avoid further bombardment of [his] [or her] 21 sensibilities simply by averting [his] [or her] eyes.' [Citation.] As a result, '[t]he ability of government, consonant with the Constitution, to shut off discourse solely to protect others from hearing it is . . . dependent upon a showing that substantial privacy interests are being invaded in an essentially intolerable manner.' [Citation.]" (Snyder, supra, at p. 1220.)
However, you are aware that Clients have upon information from CMS, believe that Dr. Shang and her attorneys have conspired to cover up medical malpractice. While the truthful speech and published public documents on this website may be hurtful to Dr. Shang and its contribution to public discourse may be insignificant, it should is quite apparent that Clients believe that they are addressing a matter of public concern—a conspiracy to cover up medical malpractice in the health care industry. As such, unless or until their First Amendment claims are fully adjudicated and determined to not be protected, and they communicate any threats or tirades directly to Dr. Shang, an injunction, judicial action, or penalties as you are threatening in this case cannot lie.
Unless we receive written communication from you within 5 days of this letter stating otherwise, then we will assume that Dr. Shang is not disputing that the CMS data is correct, or that she and her attorneys are willing to declare under the penalty of perjury that contradictory to Shang's assertions, that CMS’s information is false.
Barbara Shang MD
Newport Coast, CA 92657
Home (949) 640-7398
Cell (949) 677-6622
Office 949 726-1888
Barbara Shang, M.D., Inc. is an entity registered at California with company number C2459633
Registered agent is Roy A Kim, JD 36 Lessay Newport Coast CA 92657
Kenny Pedroza, Stanford Alumni
San Marino, California
Attorney at Cole Pedroza LLP
Appeals, Employment Law, Trials, Claim, Medical Malpractice, Class Actions, Product Liability, Arbitration, Environmental Law, Litigation Management, Appellate Practice, Torts, Insurance, Jury Trials, Trial Practice, Business Litigation
Bachelor's degree, Political Science
University of Arizona
Doctor of Law (J.D.)
Cole Pedroza LLP 2006 – Present
Thelen Reid & Priest 2000 – 2006 Kenny Pedroza