A Nonprofit Accountability Platform nippedtuckedandscrewed.com  •  es@nippedtuckedandscrewed.com
The bag is gone. Everything is documented. Everyone will know.

Nipped,
Tucked &
Screwed

The documented story of surgical harm, fabricated evidence, arbitration corruption, criminal intimidation, a data breach, and every institution that looked the other way.

Case Elina Shaffy v. Gary Motykie Record Court / JAMS / Federal Complaints Archive Public Record Status Public Accountability Archive

This is not a lawsuit. This is not an allegation. Every word on this page is documented in court records, arbitration transcripts, JAMS disclosures, hacker email chains, police reports, and formal federal complaints. Every name. Every date. Every number. On the record.

The founding story of NTS

A doctor removed parts of her anatomy without consent.
Then they spent years making sure no one would ever know.

She had a CT scan. She had surgical nursing records. She had two board-certified expert witnesses. She had a treating physician. She had a whistleblower. She had a motion for summary judgment that the arbitrator herself denied — confirming the case had merit.

None of it mattered. Because the arbitrator had undisclosed financial ties to the defense. Because a convicted criminal stalker was feeding her private arbitration details in real time — and the emails prove it. Because her medical records were hacked, published, and then erased by someone using a fake email in her name. Because NBC4 was about to break the story — until someone in New York made a call.

And because every institution she turned to — the medical board, the FBI, the DOJ, the California Supreme Court — closed the file.

NTS was built so the world would know what happened. And so it never happens to anyone else.

This public record is designed to raise awareness, prevent recurrence, put pressure on the people and institutions in the record, and support patient-protection legislation.


Layer one — the surgery

She consented only to septoplasty / internal nasal work.
He removed her turbinates.
No nose job. No turbinate consent. Permanent harm.

In 2019, Elina Shaffy underwent septoplasty / internal nasal work with Dr. Gary Motykie at Surgery on Sunset, Inc. in Beverly Hills, California. She was 40 years old. Seven years of pre-operative medical records — including records from Cedars-Sinai and multiple ENT specialists — confirmed her nasal turbinates were healthy, normal, and functionally intact. She did not consent to a nose job or external cosmetic nasal changes; she consented only to septoplasty / internal nasal work related to septal issues. No turbinate pathology was identified. No turbinate removal was indicated, recommended, discussed, or consented to.

She told Dr. Motykie explicitly before the procedure: "I don't want any changes to my nose." That is in the arbitration transcript. Under oath.

Procedure context

The corrected framing is direct: she did not consent to a nose job. She consented to septoplasty / internal nasal work only, because of septal issues. Dr. Motykie presented the work as within his expertise, describing it as a “no-brainer,” “so simple,” and something he could take care of “in thirty minutes.”

The hearing record later raised the opposite question: if he had “never” corrected one of these before, why accept the procedure and charge approximately $15,000 as if he were experienced?

She woke up without her turbinates.

Post-operative CT imaging performed by treating physician Dr. Schenck confirmed near-complete bilateral resection — approximately 90% of the right inferior turbinate and 100% of the left. This is an irreversible, catastrophic surgical intervention. It causes Empty Nose Syndrome — a permanently debilitating condition with no cure, characterized by paradoxical nasal obstruction, inability to sense airflow, chronic dryness, and severe neurological consequences. The patient cannot breathe normally. Cannot sleep normally. Cannot function normally. For the rest of her life.

Two dual board-certified ENT and facial plastic surgery experts testified at arbitration that turbinectomy is appropriate only in rare cases involving malignancy or nonviable tissue. Neither condition applied to Elina Shaffy. The procedure — as performed — was a gross deviation from the accepted standard of medical care.

She won the motion. Arbitrator Cooper confirmed on the record that the case had merit.
On June 2, 2022 — in her own written ruling — Justice Candace Cooper denied Dr. Motykie's motion for summary judgment. She found that "triable issues of material fact remain concerning the scope of consent, the nature of the surgical procedure performed, and the existence of injury." In plain terms: the arbitrator herself acknowledged that Elina's claims were real, credible, and required a full evidentiary hearing to resolve on the merits.
Then — at the hearing that followed — she excluded every piece of evidence needed to resolve those exact facts. The CT scan proving the resection. The nursing record documenting the procedure. The treating physician who interpreted the imaging. The whistleblower who would have testified to a pattern of falsified consents. Cooper found the case had merit in June. Then she constructed an evidentiary vacuum — and used that vacuum to rule against the patient in October. The Court of Appeal called this "discretionary." It was judicial bait and switch.
2019 — Surgery Without Consent
Dr. Gary Motykie performs a turbinectomy on Elina Shaffy. She consented to no such procedure. His own surgical nursing record, prepared by circulating nurse A. Galbese and authenticated as part of the official medical record, documents: septoplasty/turbinectomy. His own initial operative note uses the word turbinectomy. She wakes up permanently disabled.
January 15, 2021 — The False Certification
Retired Justice Candace Cooper signs her JAMS Disclosure Checklist. She certifies that nothing would "prohibit the arbitrator from impartially serving in this case." She fails to disclose: her repeat financial relationships with defense firm Carroll, Kelly, Trotter LLP — whose named partner John C. Kelly sits on the same arbitration panel as the defense-appointed arbitrator. She certifies this under penalty of perjury. It is false.
June 2, 2022 — MSJ Victory Acknowledged
Cooper denies Motykie's motion for summary judgment. The case has merit. A full hearing is required. Four months later, at that hearing, she excludes every piece of evidence that would resolve the very facts she acknowledged were triable.
September 16, 2022 — Threatening Emails Arrive
Three threatening emails arrive at Elina's personal address — minutes after she speaks with her attorney Chris Rudd. Subject: "Karma 2.0." The emails state she "was forewarned but refused to drop the lawsuit and now will be experiencing pain with more to come." The emails contain details from Cooper's preliminary ruling — information available only to parties in the private arbitration. Only Dr. Motykie and attorney Greg Werre possessed this information.
September 21, 2022 — Formally Submitted to JAMS
Attorney Christopher Rudd formally notifies the arbitration panel — Cooper, Kelly, and Harman-Holmes — of the threatening emails and their connection to Motykie and Werre. The submission states: "How would my criminal stalker know any medical information about me? How could he know details of a private arbitration almost in real time? If Mr. Werre did not communicate those to him almost in real time?" JAMS acknowledges receipt. Nothing happens.
October 14–17, 2022 — Conflict History Demanded
Four months after the hearing concludes, attorney Rudd demands JAMS provide Cooper's full conflict history — information that should have been disclosed before the first day of arbitration. He demands it by close of business. The information that emerges reveals what the January 2021 certification concealed.
October 24, 2022 — Award Issued Against Elina
Cooper and Kelly issue the interim award for Dr. Motykie. The dissenting arbitrator, appointed by Elina, disagrees. The award finds the evidence "does not meet the standard of proof" — after the arbitrator excluded the CT scan, nursing record, treating physician, and whistleblower that would have provided that proof.
January 9, 2023 — Supplemental Disclosures Reveal the Truth
JAMS issues a supplemental disclosure revealing what Cooper never voluntarily disclosed. Carroll, Kelly, Trotter LLP: 21 closed arbitrations, 43 closed mediations. Reback McAndrews Kjar LLP — defense counsel's firm — had been omitted entirely from the January 2021 disclosure. 5 closed mediations. Never mentioned. None of this was told to Elina before or during the arbitration.
May 5, 2023 — Continuance Denied, Forced to Proceed Alone
Elina discovers her attorney withheld the January 2023 supplemental disclosures. She requests a brief continuance to obtain new counsel and properly challenge the arbitrator's conflicts. The trial court denies it. She is forced to proceed pro se — without an attorney, without the ability to file a disqualification motion, stripped of every procedural tool available to challenge the corrupted process.
February 28, 2025 — Court of Appeal Rubber Stamps It
The Court of Appeal affirms — applying abuse-of-discretion review to statutory violations requiring de novo analysis. Its logic: no disqualification occurred, so the denied continuance caused no harm. No disqualification occurred because the continuance was denied. The appellate court used the consequence of its own ruling as proof the ruling caused no harm.
April 9, 2025 — California Supreme Court Petition Filed
Elina files a Petition for Review raising six grounds of statewide importance. The California Supreme Court denies review. Every California court has now closed the file. Every state legal remedy has been exhausted. The record is complete. And now it is public.
Layer two — the fabricated document

He produced a second operative report.
Unsigned. Undated. Never submitted to insurance.
Never given to the patient.
The arbitrator accepted it anyway.

Dr. Gary Motykie's defense rested on a single document: a second operative report claiming he performed a "turbinoplasty" — a repositioning procedure — not a turbinectomy. This document directly contradicted the first operative record, the nursing record, and his own initial operative note.

Here is what that document was — and was not.

Source excerpt — operative report authentication AA_All copy copy.pdf, pp. 17, 26, 37
"not time or date stamped"   /   "no indicia of reliability"
The appendix places the second operative report beside the arbitration transcript, the interim award, and the dissent. The filing states that Cooper admitted the second report even though it lacked date/time authentication, then used it as a basis for the award. The same page contrasts that document with the nursing record attributed to circulating nurse A. Galbese, described as dated and time-stamped.
Not Signed
No physician signature. Cannot be authenticated under California medical record law or Title 22 CCR § 70749.
Not Dated or Timestamped
No date of creation. No time stamp. Required by California Code of Regulations for all medical record entries. Confirmed in arbitration transcript and Mackins Declaration ¶4.
Never Given to the Patient
Elina Shaffy never received this document. She had no opportunity to review, challenge, or respond to it before or during the arbitration.
Never Submitted to Insurance
Blue Shield of California confirmed no turbinate procedure was submitted for reimbursement. The procedure was coded cosmetic only. The report allegedly created "for insurance purposes" was never sent to insurance.
Not Prepared by a Licensed Professional
Evidence presented at arbitration indicated the document was prepared by Sandy Fisher — an unlicensed member of Dr. Motykie's staff. Preparation of medical records by unlicensed personnel is negligence per se.
Directly Contradicts Every Other Record
The initial operative note, the nursing record, the CT scan, two board-certified expert witnesses, and the post-operative imaging all contradict this document. It stands alone — against everything.

"The majority refused to credit the only properly prepared record of what happened in the surgery. Nurse Galbese was the scrivener. If Dr. Motykie disputes the record he produced and authenticated, he had to correct it or bring in his nurse to correct it. He cannot simply change it ipse dixit as he testified — and the majority allowed."

— Claimant's Objections to Interim Award, submitted to JAMS

The dissenting arbitrator — the one appointed by Elina — found no logical basis for admission of the second operative report. Cooper and Kelly admitted it anyway. Then they used it as the primary basis for their ruling — over a CT scan, a timestamped nursing record, two board-certified experts, and the surgeon's own initial note.

That is not a legal judgment call. That is a decision to accept fabrication over fact. And the Court of Appeal called it "discretionary."

Layer three — what the Court of Appeal completely ignored

Six pieces of objective evidence.
All of it buried. None of it addressed.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the arbitration award on February 28, 2025. In doing so, it failed to meaningfully address — or simply ignored — the following documented evidence that was excluded, suppressed, or never adjudicated. Each item is in the court record.

1
The Post-Operative CT Scan — May 25, 2022
Radiological imaging confirming approximately 90% resection of the right inferior turbinate and 100% of the left — objective, visual, irrefutable proof of catastrophic surgical destruction incompatible with the defense's claim of a routine turbinoplasty. Excluded by Cooper citing "lack of foundation." The Court of Appeal held this was within the arbitrator's discretion. It was not discretion. It was the suppression of scientific truth.
Court of Appeal: called "discretionary" — not addressed on the merits
2
The Surgical Nursing Record — Nurse A. Galbese
A contemporaneous, timestamped operative record prepared by the circulating nurse present during surgery — authenticated as part of the official medical record. It documents the procedure as: septoplasty/turbinectomy. Dr. Motykie claimed his nurses "copy language from consent forms." There is no evidence Nurse Galbese's notes were copied from any other document. Her notes are unique. Cooper dismissed them anyway. The Court of Appeal did not address this evidentiary suppression.
Court of Appeal: not meaningfully addressed
3
The Treating Physician's Expert Testimony — Dr. Schenck
The physician who examined Elina post-operatively, performed the CT scan, and was prepared to testify to his direct clinical findings confirming turbinate resection. Excluded. Cooper instead elevated Dr. Suh — Motykie's independent medical expert — despite the fact that UCLA had no record of Suh's examination of Elina, and UCLA launched an internal investigation after being notified that Suh claimed to have examined a patient there with no documentation.
Court of Appeal: UCLA investigation not addressed
4
The Whistleblower — Pattern of Falsified Surgical Consents
A former employee of Surgery on Sunset prepared to testify to a systemic pattern of falsified surgical consents and undisclosed procedures at Dr. Motykie's practice. Excluded by Cooper as "improper impeachment." This was not repetitive evidence. It was independent corroboration of a pattern — directly relevant to whether Elina's experience was isolated or institutional. The Court of Appeal did not address it.
Court of Appeal: not addressed
5
The Medical Battery Claim — Never Adjudicated
Elina pleaded a medical battery claim — that a materially different procedure was performed than the one she consented to. Under Ashcraft v. King (1991), this is actionable regardless of whether the surgery was performed competently. Cooper declared the claim "not before the panel." It was clearly pleaded. It was directly tied to the procedure at issue. She did not rule against it. She refused to rule on it at all. The Court of Appeal upheld this abdication.
Court of Appeal: upheld refusal to adjudicate
6
The MSJ Contradiction — Cooper's Own Words Against Herself
On June 2, 2022, Cooper found triable issues of material fact on consent, the surgical procedure, and injury. At the subsequent hearing, she excluded every piece of evidence material to those exact triable facts. The Court of Appeal acknowledged this sequence and called it within the arbitrator's discretion. It was not discretion. It was a procedurally constructed outcome — using an evidentiary vacuum she created herself to conclude the patient failed to meet her burden of proof.
Court of Appeal: called "discretionary" — standard of review wrong
Source excerpt — CT scan, expert notice, and excluded witnesses AA_All copy copy.pdf, pp. 20, 28, 30, 32–34; Supreme Court Petition, pp. 23–25
"lack of notice"   /   "most qualified, thorough and credible expert witness"   /   "pattern and practice of resecting turbinates"
The appendix records the notice problem surrounding Dr. Suh's standard-of-care testimony, the later reliance on him in the interim award, the May 25, 2022 CT scan exclusion, and the exclusion of an impeachment witness. The Supreme Court petition recasts the same exclusions as a due-process failure because the excluded materials were the CT imaging, nursing record, treating physician testimony, and whistleblower testimony tied to the same triable issues Cooper had already identified.

The Court of Appeal applied abuse-of-discretion review to every one of these issues. California precedent — Maaso, Haworth, Jordan — requires de novo review for statutory disclosure violations and constitutional due process claims. The wrong standard of review is not a technicality. It is the mechanism by which every violation above was shielded from accountability.

The arbitration documents — on the record

She certified no conflicts.
The numbers told a different story.

Justice Candace Cooper — a retired California Court of Appeal justice, fully versed in disclosure law — certified under penalty of perjury on January 15, 2021 that nothing would prohibit her from impartially serving. The January 9, 2023 supplemental JAMS disclosure revealed what that certification concealed.

Source excerpt — repeat-player conflict framing Supreme Court Petition, pp. 17–20
"concealed web of repeat-player dynamics"   /   "Disclosure is not optional. It is the constitutional floor."
The petition identifies the alleged nondisclosures as structural, not clerical: repeat appointments involving Carroll, Kelly, Trotter LLP; an overlapping relationship with party-appointed arbitrator John C. Kelly; and JAMS reports that allegedly omitted Reback McAndrews Kjar LLP in the original January 2021 disclosure cycle. The site already lists the disclosed counts; this filing language adds the legal theory behind why those counts mattered.
JAMS Disclosure Checklist — Panelist: Candace Cooper January 15, 2021
"Nothing in this report would, in the arbitrator's opinion, prohibit the arbitrator from impartially serving in this case."

"Based upon the arbitrator's own knowledge as well as a good faith search of records available to the arbitrator and JAMS personnel…"
Cooper certified this under penalty of perjury. The January 2023 supplemental disclosure — released only after new counsel was substituted in, months after the award — revealed the full scope of repeat-player relationships this certification concealed. Elina had no opportunity to challenge these relationships before the award was issued.
Attorney Demand for Conflict History — Christopher L. Rudd, Esq. October 14–17, 2022
"Ms. Lee: Please immediately send me the details of each matter for the last 5 years through present, in which Justice Cooper has acted as an arbitrator, where any of Dr. Motykie, his insurer, Mr. Werre or his firm were parties or counsel."

Follow-up, October 17: "Can I please get this information by close of business today?"
This demand was sent four months after the arbitration hearing concluded. The information should have been proactively disclosed before day one. The urgency of the demand reflects the structural opacity of JAMS — and what happens when a party finally tries to see behind the curtain.
What JAMS finally disclosed — January 9, 2023 — within the 5-year window
21 Closed arbitrations — Carroll, Kelly, Trotter LLP (defense arbitrator's firm)
43 Closed mediations — Carroll, Kelly, Trotter LLP
74 Closed mediations — Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP (defense firm)
8 Closed arbitrations — Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
5 Closed mediations — Reback McAndrews Kjar LLP — omitted entirely from January 2021 disclosure
0 Of these disclosed to Elina Shaffy before or during the hearing
Source reference — medical battery and public policy Supreme Court Petition, pp. 8–10, 13, 15, 41, 44–46
"This case is not an aberration. It is a warning."   /   "medical battery claim ignored"
The petition argues that general consent to treatment did not resolve an unauthorized tissue-removal claim, that the CT/endoscopy findings and time-stamped nursing record supported medical battery, and that the refusal to adjudicate that claim raises statewide issues for patients forced into private medical arbitration. It frames the case as a public-policy problem involving consent, transparency, repeat-player bias, and judicial review of arbitration misconduct.
The dissent — arbitrator Ariel Harman-Holmes

"There was no logical basis for admission of the Second Operative Report of Dr. Motykie into evidence." — Dissenting arbitrator, appointed by Elina Shaffy, on the document that became the entire basis of Cooper and Kelly's ruling against the patient.

Layer four — criminal intimidation

A convicted stalker.
Real-time access to a private arbitration.
Three threatening emails.
One source: Dr. Motykie and his attorney.

While Elina's arbitration was active, a man with a documented history of violence against her — a convicted criminal who had been arrested and against whom she held a restraining order — began contacting her with threats to drop the lawsuit. What made these threats extraordinary was not their existence. It was their content.

This man knew details of a private arbitration proceeding. Details available only to the parties. Details that could only have come from Dr. Gary Motykie or his attorney Greg Werre.

"I was forewarned but refused to drop the lawsuit and now will be experiencing pain with more to come in the days following."
Subject line: "Karma 2.0"  •  Three emails received September 16, 2022 at 2:33 PM
Sent to personal address: eshaffy@me.com
Timing: Minutes after Elina spoke with her attorney Chris Rudd about Cooper's preliminary ruling
Content: Referenced specific details of Justice Cooper's preliminary ruling — information available only to parties in a sealed private arbitration
Sender: A man with a criminal record for assaulting Elina Shaffy, arrested, against whom a restraining order was obtained

In 2021 — before these emails — this same individual had called Elina from a blocked number to tell her he had been in touch with "the doctor and the lawyer" and that "they will destroy me." At the time, she did not know he meant Dr. Motykie and Greg Werre. The September 2022 emails made it unmistakable.

The connection is documented in writing, submitted to the arbitration panel, and reported to law enforcement. It raises the following questions — which remain unanswered:

How did a convicted stalker, with no connection to the arbitration, know the details of Justice Cooper's preliminary ruling? Those details were available only to the parties: Dr. Motykie, Greg Werre, and the arbitration panel.
Why did the defense introduce Exhibit 107 — "Document re assault by boyfriend of Elina Shaffy" — at the arbitration hearing, and use it to cross-examine Elina about being assaulted, if they had no prior contact with this individual?
What medical information about Elina Shaffy was communicated to this man — by Dr. Motykie or Greg Werre — in violation of her HIPAA rights? This is asked directly in the formal submission to JAMS.
Why, when police reports were filed about the threatening emails, did the same law enforcement agencies that Elina later named in formal federal complaints — LASD and LAPD — take no action?
Layer five — the data breach

His entire patient database was hacked.
Her records were published publicly.
Someone paid to erase them — using her name.

In June 2023, a hacker group operating under the domain garymotykie.at published what they described as Dr. Gary Motykie's complete patient database — approximately 5 terabytes of data including surgical photographs, videos, personal consultation records, files from his PC and OneDrive. Patient names, dates of birth, email addresses, and intimate medical photographs were published publicly without consent.

Elina Shaffy's records — including her surgical documentation — were among the data published. The same records Dr. Motykie denied the existence of under oath. The same records the arbitrator excluded from the hearing. Published. Publicly. On a hacker's website. Marked: "hot story."

From the hacker email chain — June 25–26, 2023 — documented

Hacker: "We are a financially motivated group. Currently we are selling Motykie's data and it doesn't matter for us who will pay us — Motykie or anybody else."

Hacker: "We offered him to close website and delete his data for $800,000 but he drags on and cheats us."

Hacker: "$2,500 was paid by person which used the following email address: shaffyscottsdale@gmail.com"

Elina Shaffy: "That's not my email."

Hacker: "We already received payment for deleting your data on our website and your data is not on our website anymore."

Source excerpt — email chain about records, images, and deletion Re_ Pics on site-2 copy copy.pdf, pp. 1–11
"hot story"   /   "whole Gary Motykie's clinic archive"   /   "about 5TB of data"   /   "We delete data after payment"   /   "about 3 weeks to download it"
The email packet records Elina asking what was posted about her, including surgery pictures or videos, whether anyone downloaded her files, and why her profile was marked "hot story." The sender describes a broader clinic archive with personal and online consult photographs, PC files, and OneDrive files; separately, the sender says her data was deleted after a payment by someone using shaffyscottsdale@gmail.com, an address Elina immediately denied was hers.

shaffyscottsdale@gmail.com is not Elina Shaffy's email address. It never was. Someone created an email address impersonating her — using her name — and paid $2,500 specifically to erase her surgical records from the hacker's site. The records being erased were the same records excluded from the arbitration. The same records Dr. Motykie denied under oath.

This is identity impersonation. It is a federal crime under the Stored Communications Act. It was reported to the FBI and the DOJ via formal certified complaints. Both agencies took no action.

NBC4 Los Angeles journalist Carolyn Johnson — who has spent years investigating plastic surgeon misconduct — was preparing to report on the connection between Dr. Motykie and the fake email shaffyscottsdale@gmail.com. The story would have exposed the identity impersonation publicly. Before it aired, someone called the network from New York and stated the story could not run showing Dr. Motykie associated with that email address. The story was killed.
Carolyn Johnson reported part of the Motykie story. The piece connecting Motykie to the fake email — the piece that would have proven the identity impersonation — was suppressed. The call came from New York. The connection to individuals named in Justice Cooper's January 2021 arbitrator disclosure is known to Elina Shaffy and is part of the documented record.
Every door she knocked on

Eleven institutions.
Every single one closed the file.

This is not a story about one bad doctor. This is a story about what happens when every institution designed to protect patients — medical, legal, regulatory, federal — chooses instead to protect the powerful. Every entry below is documented. Every complaint was filed. Every response — or non-response — is on record.

The Surgeon
Dr. Gary Motykie
Performed a turbinectomy without consent. Denied it under oath. Produced an unsigned, undated, unauthenticated second operative report as his defense. Used a convicted stalker as a defense exhibit at arbitration.
No consequences. Still practicing.
The Arbitrator
Justice Candace Cooper (Ret.)
Failed to disclose repeat financial relationships with defense firm Carroll, Kelly, Trotter LLP. Excluded CT scan, nursing record, treating physician, whistleblower. Refused to adjudicate the battery claim. Certified "no conflicts" under penalty of perjury.
No disciplinary action. Continuing to arbitrate.
Defense Attorney
Greg Werre, Reback McAndrews Kjar LLP
His firm's extensive JAMS history was omitted entirely from the January 2021 disclosure. Named in formal complaint regarding communication with Elina's convicted stalker.
No consequences.
JAMS — Private Arbitration
Judicial Arbitration & Mediation Services
Facilitated a structurally compromised arbitration. Withheld supplemental disclosures until after new counsel was substituted in. Acknowledged receipt of intimidation complaint. Took no action.
No action taken.
Trial Court
Hon. Edward B. Moreton, Jr. — LASC Dept. 205
Denied petition to vacate the arbitration award. Denied continuance request when Elina discovered her attorney had withheld critical disclosures. Forced her to proceed pro se in a structurally compromised hearing.
Petition denied. Case dismissed.
Court of Appeal
Second Appellate District, Division One
Affirmed. Applied wrong standard of review. Used circular logic on continuance denial. Failed to address six categories of documented evidence suppression. Ruling: February 28, 2025. Unpublished.
Affirmed. February 28, 2025.
California Supreme Court
Supreme Court of California
Petition for Review filed April 9, 2025 raising six grounds of statewide importance including arbitrator disclosure, evidence suppression, wrong appellate standard, and medical battery claim ignored. Review denied.
Review denied. April 2025.
Medical Regulator
California Medical Board
Received formal complaint regarding unauthorized turbinectomy, falsified operative records, and violation of informed consent standards. Investigated. Closed the file. No disciplinary action against Dr. Gary Motykie.
No action. File closed.
Federal Law Enforcement
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
Received formal certified complaint documenting data breach, identity impersonation via shaffyscottsdale@gmail.com, HIPAA violations, and potential federal crimes under the Stored Communications Act.
No response. No action.
Federal Law Enforcement
U.S. Department of Justice
Received formal certified complaint. Same documentation as FBI complaint. Preservation demand included due to risk of record destruction.
No response. No action.
Local Law Enforcement
LASD & LAPD
Received multiple police reports regarding criminal threatening emails from convicted stalker with real-time access to private arbitration information. Formal complaints filed naming Detective Juan Bonilla (LASD) and Detective Morales (LAPD) for alleged misconduct.
No action on reports. Misconduct complaints pending.

They didn't fall through the cracks. The cracks were built for them to fall through. And now — for the first time — the full picture is public. Documented. Permanent. And impossible to bury.

The bag is gone.
Everything is documented.
The world knows now.

To everyone who buried evidence, falsified records, concealed conflicts, intimidated a patient, erased her data, killed a news story, and closed the file: you should know that this moment was always coming.

The CT scan still exists. The nursing record still exists. The hacker emails still exist. The threatening emails still exist. The JAMS disclosures still exist. The police reports still exist. The federal complaints still exist. The arbitration transcript still exists. Every document on this page is real, authenticated, and in the public record.

You cannot erase what you could not contain. And you cannot silence what is already speaking.

NTS is just getting started.

Why NTS exists

A nonprofit built on the wreckage of a broken system — so the next patient doesn't fight alone.

Nipped, Tucked & Screwed™ is a nonprofit accountability platform for patients who have been harmed by surgical misconduct and denied recourse by private arbitration, institutional cover-up, or systemic failure.

We document. We publish. We advocate. We connect injured patients with journalists, legislators, and legal advocates who can amplify what private arbitration was designed to silence.

The mission is also legislative: to push for protections so patients and the general public do not have to live through this kind of institutional failure.

You are not wrong. You are not crazy. And you are not alone.

01

Document & Publish

Collect, verify, and publish patient accounts of surgical harm and arbitration abuse — creating the public record that private proceedings are designed to prevent.

02

Expose Conflicts

Investigate repeat-player relationships between arbitrators, defense firms, and arbitration providers. Make those conflicts publicly searchable.

03

Advocate for Reform

Work with legislators, journalists, and patient advocacy groups to advance reforms restoring transparency, neutrality, and meaningful access to justice in medical arbitration.

04

Connect & Support

Connect harmed patients with legal resources, investigative journalists, and a survivor community. Every story strengthens the case for reform.

From the founders of NTS
RadReveal.ai
Coming Late 2026

NTS was born from a case where a CT scan proved everything — and was excluded anyway. RadReveal.ai exists so the next patient walks into a doctor's office, a deposition, or an arbitration already knowing exactly what their imaging shows. In their own language. With documentation they control.

The archive tells the founding story, while the app ecosystem gives patients a clearer way to understand and preserve their own imaging before any institution can bury it.

A patient-facing medical AI platform built with physician leadership in interventional radiology — co-founded by Dr. Christopher Herzig, M.D. Putting your imaging in your hands before anyone can take it from you. Coming late 2026.

Get notified at launch →
You are not alone

Share your story.

If you or someone you love has been harmed by surgical misconduct, denied informed consent, silenced by private arbitration, or ignored by the institutions that were supposed to protect you — we want to hear from you. Every account matters. Every story is evidence.

Your submission is strictly confidential. We will never publish your story without your explicit written consent. We are not a law firm and do not provide legal advice.