The Case Dr. Smart Tried to Erase
Frisco Plastic Surgery Documented Patient Harm and Metadata Suppression. When the Legal System Stalled, the Search Engine Stepped In.
Whistleblower Report: Surgical Misconduct, Consent Violation, Consumer Fraud, & Malpractice — Dr. Kenneth Smart, MD
Filed by: Brian S. Lewis
Date of Filing: April 8, 2025
Location: Frisco Plastic Surgery & MedSpa, Frisco, TX
Police Report Filed: April 16, 2025, Report Number: 25045794
By Brian S. Lewis
President | Lewis Creative Group
Marine Veteran | Media Strategist | Husband of Patient Tara Lewis
About the Author:
Brian Lewis is the President of Lewis Creative Group and a U.S. Marine veteran specializing in strategic communications, public accountability campaigns, and metadata-driven forensic reporting. After uncovering widespread surgical misconduct, digital suppression, and defense counsel obstruction involving Frisco Plastic Surgery & MedSpa and Dr. Kenneth Smart, he launched a public documentation campaign to preserve the truth across search engines, regulatory filings, and journalistic archives. His investigative work spans metadata spoliation, regulatory concealment, and digital tampering of patient safety records. All findings are timestamped, archived, and indexed for public transparency and regulatory oversight. This publication is part of an ongoing commitment to expose systemic healthcare fraud and defend patient rights.
Whistleblower Declaration
Brian Lewis is a U.S. Marine veteran and the lead whistleblower behind the public exposure of systemic fraud, metadata manipulation, and regulatory concealment involving Frisco Plastic Surgery & MedSpa, Dr. Kenneth R. Smart, Jr., The Doctors Company, and associated defense counsel.
Lewis’s forensic campaigns are timestamped, cross-indexed, and preserved for submission to investigative journalists, federal oversight agencies, and public advocacy organizations. His efforts are part of an expanding national initiative to defend patient rights, dismantle healthcare corruption, and enforce transparency across digital and regulatory ecosystems.
⸻
Public Evidence Archive — Google Drive
This article is a permanent metadata record documenting the surgical fraud, consent violation, chart falsification, metadata suppression, insurance concealment, and defense counsel misconduct involving Frisco Plastic Surgery & MedSpa, Dr. Kenneth R. Smart, Jr., Gregory Shamoun, Bruce Pauley, Ginny Markham, and The Doctors Company. Public evidence archives are timestamped and escalating.
Master File (Lewis v. Smart): https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lMOY8F9Bv4lvVBaugkFvxbjxCtDHRlJQ/view
Dr. Kenneth Smart — Email Record Archive (Lewis v. Smart): https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1C5g5JFmscoH9QlpH2e2nXJh730WI_kS9?usp=drive_link
Dr. Ken Smart, MD — Surgical Malpractice & Consumer Fraud Evidence Record Archive (Lewis v. Smart): https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1lxCFzXC1kXlW3_7ubxuG4F7ZaiKhhpXk?usp=drive_link
The original Reddit thread that triggered this campaign is visible here: https://www.reddit.com/r/PlasticSurgery/s/gg1WZlJNzf
⸻
Confirmed Complaints Filed:
Frisco Plastic Surgery & MedSpa, led by Dr. Kenneth Smart, is now facing allegations of metadata suppression, consent violations, and surgical fraud. This public report outlines forensic evidence, including chart falsifications, surgical deviation, and reputational cover-up strategies involving defense counsel Gregory Shamoun and Bruce Pauley.
1. Frisco Police Department — Criminal Surgical Battery Case #: 250457942
• Filed: April 16, 2025
• Allegation: Unauthorized surgical procedures performed without informed consent; potential violation of Texas Penal Code § 22.01 (Assault).
• Evidence: Operative reports, photo records, pre-op confirmations, and surgical goal concealment.
⸻
2. Texas Medical Board (TMB) — Consent Violation and Standard of Care Breach
• Filed: April 16, 2025
• Allegation: Willful disregard of patient surgical instructions; no lift performed despite documented agreement; false charting and billing.
• Status: Under board review.
• Evidence: Surgical visuals, pre- and post-op records, witness statements, and expert review.
⸻
3. Texas Department of Insurance — Bad Faith and Suppression
• Filed: April 18, 2025
• Target: The Doctors Company (Ginny Markham)
• Allegation: Misclassification of surgical battery as standard malpractice; deliberate delay in response under legal hold; failure to act in light of mounting metadata evidence.
• Exhibits: Insurer correspondence, legal hold notifications, suppression metadata.
⸻
4. HHS Office for Civil Rights (OCR) — HIPAA and Record Tampering
• Filed: April 17, 2025
• Allegation: Mishandling of PHI, post-operative record modification, and consent protocol breaches.
• Supporting Material: Pre-op email trails, operative reports, photo documentation, and witness testimony.
⸻
5. State Bar of Texas — Attorney Misconduct and Metadata Spoliation
• Filed Against: Greg Shamoun & Bruce Pauley
• Filed: April 18, 2025
• Allegation: Legal and ethical failure to intervene in known misconduct; complicit in suppression of digital evidence after legal hold; improper settlement leverage under false pretenses.
• Supporting Evidence: Emails, timeline conflicts, Shamoun’s April 5 letter, and live metadata shifts.
⸻
6. The Aesthetic Society (ASAPS) — Ethics Complaint and Credentialing Action
• Filed: April 15, 2025
• Allegation: Deviation from patient-confirmed goals, repeated surgical failure, and record falsification.
• Confirmed Inclusion: Legal counsel Chris Nuland confirmed inclusion on April 23, 2025.
• Attached: Metadata Impact Report, expert rebuke (Dr. Najera), and 11-case visual fraud archive.
⸻
7. American Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS) — Ethics and Conduct Complaint
• Filed: April 18, 2025
• Allegation: False advertising, misrepresentation of outcomes, suppression of negative media and reviews, and consent breaches.
• Evidence: Side-by-side case analysis, suppression history, and expert statements.
⸻
8. American Board of Plastic Surgery (ABPS) — Ethics Violation and NPDB Referral Request
• Filed: April 23, 2025
• Allegation: Violations of ABPS Code of Ethics (Articles IV & V), including:
• Non-consensual procedures
• False medical record documentation
• Breach of professional transparency
• Request: Formal ethics investigation and NPDB referral for confirmed consent, billing, and ethical violations.
• Attached: 10-document evidence set, including metadata report and forensic review.
⸻
9. Dallas Society of Plastic Surgeons (DSPS) — Membership Accountability Request
• Filed: April 16, 2025 (Follow-up sent April 22, 2025)
• Allegation: DSPS member engaged in unethical conduct with reputational consequences; society urged to review membership eligibility and forward to legal counsel.
• Response: Becky Sheldon confirmed DSPS lacks regulatory jurisdiction, but they are reviewing the matter internally.
• Evidence: All email records, AI metadata reversal, and photo exhibits.
⸻
10. FBI / IC3.gov — Cybercrime, Suppression, and Digital Fraud
• Filed: April 19, 2025
• Allegation: Coordinated suppression of patient reviews and images across Yelp and Google platforms post-legal hold; deceptive digital manipulation indicative of cyber fraud.
• Evidence: Screenshot logs, platform takedown patterns, suppression metadata timeline.
⸻
Table of Contents
- Introduction: When the Legal System Stalled, the Search Engine Stepped In
- Section I: Confirmed Directives, Clear Deviation
- Section II: Expert Opinion — Clinical Consensus on Standard of Care
- Section III: Cosmetic Gaslighting & Consumer Fraud
- Section IV: Whistleblower Metadata Index
- Section V: Game. Set. Metadata.
- Section VI: The Algorithm Always Wins
- Section VII: This Isn’t a Settlement — It’s a Sentence
- Section VIII: The Cover-Up That Confessed
- Section IX: Updates
- Section X: Final Word — From a Husband, Not a Plaintiff
- Appendix: Evidence, References, and Legal Safeguards
⸻
Introduction: When Silence Speaks Louder Than a Scalpel
This isn’t a lawsuit.
This is a whistleblower record.
And now, it’s a search result.
On April 8, 2025, after months of documented evidence, failed accountability, and silence from those responsible, the metadata went live. Timestamps were locked. Photos were indexed. And a malpractice coverup became a cautionary tale.
The subject?
Dr. Kenneth Smart, MD.
Board-certified plastic surgeon. Frisco, Texas. Two failed surgeries. One patient — my wife, Tara.
The story you’re about to read isn’t opinion. It’s not speculation. It’s a digital deposition written for the people the system forgot to protect — patients, spouses, families, and future victims who deserve to know the truth before stepping into an operating room.
The Medium article — titled “Game. Set. Metadata.” — isn’t just a story. It’s a strategic evidence archive:
• Fully indexed by Google
• Publicly timestamped
• Tied to Dr. Kenneth Smart’s name, clinic, and procedures
Anyone who Googles him — patients, lawyers, journalists, credentialing boards, insurance underwriters — will find it.
They can’t spin this.
They can’t bury it.
They can’t argue intent — because the evidence is theirs.
• The fraud is visible.
• The archive is public.
• The record is structured.
• And the court of public opinion is already watching.
And now that truth is permanent.
(Frisco Plastic Surgery & MedSpa, led by Dr. Kenneth Smart, is now facing allegations of metadata suppression, consent violations, and surgical fraud. This public report outlines forensic evidence, including chart falsifications, surgical deviation, and reputational cover-up strategies involving defense counsel Gregory Shamoun and Bruce Pauley.)
⸻
Section I: Confirmed Directives, Clear Deviation
Documented Patient Instructions and Acknowledged Surgical Plan — Violated:
The Emails They Didn’t Expect to See
This story didn’t begin with a lawsuit.
It began with a husband and wife who followed the process, honored the system, and did everything by the book. Who trusted a board-certified surgeon. Who paid in full. Who documented every step — before, during, and after.
Who wrote everything down.
And those emails? They weren’t just correspondence. They became evidence.
⸻
Email 1 — January 2, 2025: The Directive
“To ensure a shared understanding, we have outlined our cosmetic goals for the revision…”
From the start, Tara and I were clear. We requested a full mastopexy, ultra-high-profile cohesive implants, a lifted and perky result, forward projection, and elimination of sagging. These requests were written, respectful, detailed — and acknowledged.
There was no ambiguity. This wasn’t a vague cosmetic wish. It was a surgical plan, sent nine days before the procedure.
⸻
Email 2 — March 28, 2025 (Morning): The Realization
“This was not a first-time consultation… this was a revision.”
After the second failed surgery, we looked at the results — and they didn’t lie.
No lift had been performed.
No nipple had been repositioned.
No projection had been restored.
We had paid, waited, and trusted. What we got was a flattened chest wall, a sagging implant, and a completely avoidable outcome. In that moment, our tone shifted. No longer hopeful. Now holding receipts.
We stated:
“The procedure that was performed deviated from what we believed we were agreeing to… This misrepresentation had a direct and lasting impact.”
And it did.
⸻
Email 3 — March 28, 2025 (Evening): The Clinical Case
That night, we sent a final pre-meeting breakdown. Not emotion. Not opinion. Just fact.
We cited:
• Dr. Steven Teitelbaum (UCLA): “Tightening skin underneath the breast is like pulling a bedsheet over a sagging mattress.”
• Dr. Kristi Hustak (Houston): “Skin tightening alone will quickly fail under the weight of the implant.”
• Dr. William P. Adams Jr. (ASAPS): “Avoiding a lift due to scarring often leads to persistent ptosis and implant malposition.”
• Dr. Sheila Nazarian (Beverly Hills): “The result is always the same — implants that sit low, nipples that remain low, and unhappy patients.”
We didn’t just show the surgical deviation. We showed how the expert community had already named it, warned against it, and defined it as malpractice.
We showed that the use of non-high-profile implants contradicted Tara’s written directives. That skin excision without nipple elevation isn’t a lift. That the same mistake was made twice. That Dr. Smart ignored established standards, dismissed the patient’s voice, and concealed his own aesthetic bias behind vague intraoperative commentary.
We even gave him one last chance:
“Should you agree to refund the full amount paid for both surgeries… we would treat that refund as a full and final resolution of this matter.”
It was a final invitation to do the right thing.
It was ignored.
⸻
What the Emails Proved
They proved the directives were clear.
They proved the standard of care was violated.
They proved informed consent was bypassed.
They proved the harm wasn’t abstract — it was measurable, documented, and now published.
Every quote.
Every request.
Every denial.
Every excuse.
It’s all here.
The story wasn’t just told.
It was timestamped.
And that’s why metadata wins.
⸻
Section II: Expert Opinion — Clinical Consensus on Standard of Care
This case is not speculative. The evidence is supported by leading voices in breast revision surgery, surgical ethics, and aesthetic standards. Below is the full compilation of medical expert quotes, clinical insights, and peer-reviewed references used to assess the deviation in this case:
⸻
Dr. Daniel Del Vecchio — Harvard-trained, board-certified plastic surgeon
“Breast tissue does not produce projection — implant profile does. Tissue may provide coverage, but the forward push comes from the implant.”
“You can’t rely on soft tissue in a revision. It’s failed once — it’ll fail again. Projection and shape must come from internal reshaping and implant choice.”
⸻
Dr. Kristi Hustak — Board-certified revision specialist
“Each revision increases the difficulty of achieving ideal results, raises risks of capsular contracture, scarring, and tissue compromise.”
“Without repositioning the nipple and glandular tissue, you’re not truly lifting the breast. Skin tightening alone might create temporary tightness, but it will quickly fail under the weight of the implant — especially in revision cases or after pregnancy.”
⸻
Dr. Dennis Hammond — Developer of the SPAIR technique for breast reshaping
“When you avoid a lift in a ptotic breast, you’re asking soft tissue that already failed once to now carry even more weight. That’s a recipe for implant descent and persistent ptosis.”
⸻
Dr. William P. Adams Jr. — Past President, The Aesthetic Society
“Upper pole fullness is one of the key components in aesthetic breast surgery and can be achieved with proper implant selection, placement, and tissue support.”
“Proper correction of ptosis involves reshaping the internal breast mound and elevating the nipple complex. Avoiding a lift due to scarring or convenience often leads to persistent ptosis and implant malposition, especially in revisions.”
⸻
Dr. Steven Teitelbaum — Clinical Professor of Plastic Surgery, UCLA
“A true breast lift repositions the nipple and reshapes the breast from the inside out. Tightening skin under the breast is like pulling a bedsheet over a sagging mattress — it may look better briefly, but it doesn’t solve the underlying problem.”
⸻
Dr. Sheila Nazarian — Board-certified plastic surgeon, Beverly Hills
“Of ten patients who were told they ‘didn’t need’ a lift, the result is always the same — implants that sit low, nipples that remain low, and unhappy patients. A true lift is never optional when tissue sag exists.”
⸻
Dr. Daniel Labow — Chief of Plastic Surgery, Mount Sinai Health System
“Revision breast surgery demands precision. If the breast envelope is not reshaped and the nipple isn’t repositioned, the result will never align with the patient’s goals — especially if high-profile projection is desired.”
⸻
Dr. Tim Sayed — Double board-certified plastic surgeon, San Diego & Miami
“High-profile implants offer forward projection — critical for post-pregnancy patients with laxity. Dropping to moderate projection in a revision will flatten the breast and stretch the pocket further.”
⸻
Dr. Richard Baxter — Expert in revision breast surgery
“If the patient requested a mastopexy and didn’t receive one, and the implant profile was also changed — then that’s two points of deviation from informed consent, not one.”
⸻
Dr. Anthony Youn — Board-certified plastic surgeon & author
“When implants are substituted and a lift is omitted, patients often feel betrayed — because they trusted the surgeon to follow their instructions. That’s a violation of both ethics and expectations.”
⸻
American Board of Plastic Surgery
“A breast lift (mastopexy) requires elevation of the nipple-areola complex and reshaping of the parenchymal tissue. Skin excision alone without nipple elevation does not qualify.”
⸻
American Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS)
“Implant profile selection must be guided by patient anatomy and consented goals. A reduction in projection must be explicitly approved by the patient.”
“Failure to follow a patient’s preoperative instructions — especially involving implant choice and mastopexy — is considered a deviation from the standard of care.”
⸻
The Aesthetic Surgery Journal (2020)
“Projection is primarily a function of implant geometry. Lower-profile implants add lateral bulk and weight without anterior enhancement, especially in patients with tissue redundancy.”
⸻
The Aesthetic Society Clinical Paper (2021)
“High-profile implants are often required in post-maternity revisions where projection loss is present. Using a lower profile in a previously augmented, lax tissue breast increases sag.”
⸻
American Medical Association Code of Ethics
“A physician shall respect the rights of patients, including the right to receive complete information and make decisions about their care.”
⸻
Texas Medical Board Rule §165.1 — Medical Records Content
“Operative reports must include sufficient detail to support the diagnosis, procedure performed, and informed consent obtained.”
⸻
American Psychological Association
“The psychological impact of failed aesthetic surgery can include anxiety, depression, body image disturbance, and relationship strain — particularly when compounded by poor communication or consent violations.”
⸻
Texas Medical Board (Malpractice Risk Guidelines)
“Substituted implant materials or omitted procedures — absent documented consent — constitute potential grounds for discipline under failure-to-disclose provisions.”
⸻
Clinical Observations from Board-Certified Revision Surgeons (Aggregate)
“When a patient undergoes a second surgery just to fix the first — and ends up worse — it is not a complication. It is a failure of planning, execution, and ethical consent.”
⸻
Section III: Cosmetic Gaslighting & Consumer Fraud
Based on the photo gallery and advertising claims shown on Dr. Ken Smart’s official website at www.kensmartmd.com, several serious issues arise that point to misleading marketing, professional misrepresentation, and possible advertising fraud. Here is a breakdown — categorized, documented, and supported by direct visual evidence.
1. Misrepresentation of Surgical Expertise
Dr. Smart explicitly advertises breast lift with implant (mastopexy with augmentation). However:
• Many “after” photos still show pronounced breast ptosis (sagging), inferior pole fullness, and zero improvement in nipple height — indicating either no lift was performed or the lift was clinically inadequate.
• In Tara’s case and others, the nipple remains below the inframammary fold post-op, violating ASPS standards for a successful mastopexy.
• The label “Breast Lift with Implant” is applied to results that reflect augmentation only — misleading patients into believing a complex procedure was performed, when it was not.
2. Visual Evidence by Case Study — A Systematic Pattern of Deceptive Representation
All 11 cases displayed on KenSmartMD.com are labeled as “Breast Lift with Implant” (mastopexy with augmentation). However, a forensic visual review reveals no mastopexy was actually performed. Each case shows telltale signs of skipped skin excision, absent nipple elevation, and uncorrected ptosis, directly contradicting ASPS and ABPS standards of care for a breast lift.
Case 1 — Augmentation Only
• Nipple-areola complex remains at or below the inframammary fold (IMF).
• No evidence of vertical or anchor scar indicating a lift.
• Implant fills the breast volume but does not correct sag or nipple position.
Case 2 — No Structural Lift Performed
• Nipple position remains unchanged; breast mound shape is identical.
• No visible lift scars or skin removal.
• Post-op falsely appears lifted only due to subglandular implant push.
Case 3 — Ptosis Remains Post-Op
• Marked asymmetry persists; nipples still low and uneven.
• No change in skin envelope or areolar position.
• Represents a clinical failure under ASPS mastopexy outcome standards.
Case 4 — Triple Set, Zero Lifts
• All three sets show pre-op ptosis and post-op volume increase only.
• Nipple height unchanged; inframammary fold not elevated.
• A clear example of commercial mislabeling of augmentation-only results.
Case 5 — Labeled as ‘Lift with Implants’
• Pre- and post-op photos show identical ptotic breast footprint.
• Areolar height does not change; no reshaping is evident.
• Result reflects augmentation alone, contradicting the “lift” label.
Case 6 — Complete Absence of Mastopexy Technique
• Nipple position is virtually unchanged.
• No vertical scar or lift incision pattern.
• This is a volumetric fill only — no surgical correction of sag.
Case 7 — Areolas Remain Below IMF
• The breast mound appears fuller, but the lift is not executed.
• No visible vertical or periareolar lift marks.
• Result violates core tenets of mastopexy surgery — especially in patients with grade II–III ptosis.
Case 8 — ‘Lift with Implant Exchange’ is Deceptive
• Despite the label, the post-op image reflects minimal changes to sag.
• Nipple remains low; areola stretched and still wide.
• Label falsely implies both skin and implant revision — neither is evident.
Case 9 — Subtle Shift, Not a Lift
• Slight projection change from implant, but nipple remains same height.
• No anchor or vertical scar; no lift evident in clinical outcome.
• Misleading to patients expecting a reshaping, not just augmentation.
Case 10 — Mastopexy Never Occurred
• One of the clearest cases of mislabeling.
• No elevation of areola or skin tightening.
• Before-and-after difference is limited to implant fullness.
Case 11 — Textbook Disqualification
• One nipple remains below the fold.
• Scarring pattern does not match any recognized mastopexy technique.
• Breach of standard, especially when advertised as a full lift and exchange.
Expert Consensus
According to Dr. R. Scott Yarish (board-certified plastic surgeon), “A proper breast lift requires elevation of the nipple–areolar complex to a position above the inframammary fold, skin excision to reduce sag, and structural reshaping of the breast mound. If none of those elements are visible post-op, it was not a mastopexy.”
Per ASPS Guidelines: “Breast lift procedures must visibly elevate the nipple, remove redundant skin, and restore youthful contour. Post-op results that show only volume change with persistent ptosis do not qualify as a lift.”
His Own Words Betray Him
In his own published blog post, “Breast Augmentation vs. Breast Lift: Which Is Right for You?” (Jan. 31, 2017), Dr. Kenneth Smart wrote:
“Breast augmentation does not correct breast sagging or drooping. For those who wish to have fuller, perkier breasts, breast augmentation may be combined with a breast lift for a total makeover of the bust line.”
“The breast lift procedure is different from breast augmentation in that no implants are placed and instead, tissue is removed. […] The size of the areola may be reduced and the nipples will be repositioned to match the breast’s lifted position.”
Yet in every case labeled “Breast Lift with Implant” on his gallery:
• No breast tissue is removed
• No nipple repositioning occurs
• No skin is excised
• No lift scars are visible
• And the sag remains exactly as it was pre-op
Conclusion: Dr. Smart’s own clinical definition directly contradicts the results he published and labeled as mastopexies.
This isn’t patient confusion — it’s published, timestamped self-incrimination.
Linked Evidence: Breast Augmentation vs. Breast Lift — Blog Post by Dr. Kenneth Smart
All 11 cases appear to be augmentation-only surgeries misrepresented as combined lift procedures. This is not simply a matter of aesthetic interpretation — it is verifiable surgical misrepresentation and advertising fraud.
Under Texas Administrative Code § 164.3 (Unprofessional Conduct) and the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, this kind of systematic mislabeling and commercial exploitation carries both civil and potentially criminal implications.
3. Fraudulent Website Claims
Dr. Smart’s written claims include:
“Excess skin is removed… the areola can be reduced in size… the procedure lifts the breast tissue and nipple…”
But:
• In photo after photo, there’s no sign of skin excision, nipple elevation, or areolar refinement.
• These marketing claims directly contradict the visual results.
• This constitutes false advertising in both imagery and language — potentially violating Texas Administrative Code § 164.3 (Unprofessional Conduct) and FTC truth-in-advertising laws.
4. Deceptive Labeling
• Labeling these photos “Breast Lift with Implant” when they clearly show only augmentation violates medical ethics and AMA guidelines on truthful representation.
• It is a clear effort to inflate skillset, pad visual portfolios, and convert high-value procedures without delivering the service promised.
• This is not “interpretation” — it is deliberate patient deception.
5. Implications for Our Claim (and Every Future Patient)
• This visual evidence supports our claim that Tara’s outcome was not an isolated case — it was part of a repeating pattern of unperformed lifts, mislabeled results, and consent violations.
• Dr. Smart’s gallery documents the failure to execute, the intent to conceal, and the strategy to profit.
• This supports grounds for claims under Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, FTC violations, and board-level investigations.
⸻
Why He Did It: Ego, Expediency, and Ethical Evasion
These aren’t innocent oversights — they’re strategic decisions. Here’s why:
1. Financial Gain
• True mastopexy requires 60–90 more minutes, more skill, and higher liability.
• Skipping it means: less risk, more volume, same billing.
• He gets paid for the “lift” without performing one — maximizing revenue, minimizing exposure.
2. Assembly-Line Surgery
• By skipping lifts, he increases daily patient throughput.
• His gallery appears fuller, outcomes look cleaner, and his “skillset” looks broader.
• This is not elite care. It’s profit-driven production line surgery.
3. Surgeon Ego and Aesthetic Bias
• He likely prefers the look of implants without lift scars.
• So he overrules patient directives, believing he knows best.
• This isn’t clinical judgment — it’s ego-driven malpractice.
4. Scar Avoidance, But Still Selling the Lift
• He avoids anchor/lollipop scars to advertise cleaner results.
• Then falsely calls those clean augmentations “lift outcomes.”
• That’s not clever marketing — it’s fraud.
5. He Assumed You Wouldn’t Notice
• He counted on the fact most patients don’t know what a lift should actually look like.
• He used medical jargon, verbal deflection, and post-op gaslighting to justify it.
• You were never supposed to compare the gallery and catch on.
But you did.
This isn’t just unethical.
It’s criminal exposure.
He didn’t just omit a lift.
He sold one. Billed for one. Advertised one.
And that’s fraud, not just malpractice.
- Visual Misrepresentation Is Proven
The composite image and full PDF analysis show 11 consecutive surgical outcomes labeled as “Breast Lift with Implant” with no mastopexy performed. This isn’t subjective — it’s anatomically measurable and visually indisputable. - Contradiction of His Own Words
His 2017 blog post outlines exactly what a lift entails — skin removal, nipple repositioning, tissue reshaping. The published results show none of it. That’s not just inconsistency. That’s self-incriminating evidence. - Regulatory Exposure Is Imminent
Violations of:
• Texas Administrative Code §164.3 (Unprofessional Conduct)
• Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act
• FTC Truth-in-Advertising Guidelines
• ASPS, ABPS, and AMA Ethical Codes - Tampering Is Legally Risky
His site is now under a documented legal hold. If anything is altered, removed, or scrubbed, that’s evidence tampering — and becomes a criminal matter. - Credentialing, Insurance, and Licensure Are in Jeopardy
Every panel, board, and certifying authority that sees this record will be forced to act — or be seen as complicit.
Dr. Kenneth Smart is now staring down an existential threat to his license, career, and public credibility.
⸻
Section IV: Whistleblower Metadata Index
Primary Physician: Dr. Kenneth Smart, MD
• Title: Board-Certified Plastic Surgeon
• Practice: Frisco Plastic Surgery & MedSpa
• Email: drsmart@kensmartmd.com
• Phone: (972) 334–0400
• Address: 3140 Legacy Dr., Suite 110, Frisco, TX 75034
• Website: https://www.kensmartmd.com
⸻
Involved Staff — Frisco Plastic Surgery & MedSpa
Rachel Schindler — Office Manager
Brook Anderson — Medical Assistant
Jaelea Lacey, RN — Registered Nurse
• Email: frontdesk@kensmartmd.com
• Phone: (972) 334–0400
• Address: 3140 Legacy Dr., Suite 110, Frisco, TX 75034
⸻
External Legal & Insurance Contacts
Bruce Pauley — Defense Counsel
• Firm: Campbell Huber PLLC
• Email: bruce.pauley@campbellhuber.com
• Phone: (214) 665–2009
• Website: https://www.campbellhuber.com
Ginny Markham — Claims Specialist III
• Company: The Doctors Company / Texas Medical Liability Trust
• Email: [Internal — filed for record]
Gregory Shamoun — Defense Attorney / “Fixer”
• Firm: Shamoun & Norman LLP
• Email: g@snlegal.com
• Website: https://www.snlegal.com
⸻
Billing Vs. Surgical Delivery | An Admission of Malpractice
Following two failed procedures by Dr. Kenneth Smart and confirmed surgical deviation, board-certified plastic surgeon Dr. Robert Najera recommended a full bilateral mastopexy revision, implant exchange, and mesh reinforcement. Total estimated surgical costs: $14,333.25 — excluding medications, post-op care, and potential future revisions. This documented estimate proves monetary damages, medical necessity, and physical disfigurement — directly refuting Bruce Pauley’s and Gregory Shamoun’s false claims of “no harm” and “no monetary damages.”
Posted publicly. Rejected formally.
A release offer isn’t a resolution — it’s an admission they’re scared of what happens next.
You can redact a name. You can’t redact the pattern.
The Offer That Wasn’t
On January 2, 2025, after consulting with Dr. Farid Dharamsi and submitting detailed pre-op instructions — including a full mastopexy, ultra-high-profile implants, and structural correction — Tara Lewis made one last attempt to pursue trust over trauma.
But by April, two failed surgeries, two contradictory invoices, and one public record later, Tara Lewis formally withdrew her offer to settle for $10,300.
Why?
Because what happened wasn’t a miscommunication.
It was unauthorized surgery.
Dr. Smart didn’t just make a clinical error. He performed two back-to-back procedures without delivering the core surgical correction requested, consented to, and acknowledged in writing.
He didn’t perform a mastopexy — twice.
He ignored visible ptosis, selected moderate-profile implants in defiance of Tara’s directives, and used misleading terms like “skin removal” and “lower pole tightening” to conceal the absence of a true lift. These are not just poor choices. They are textbook violations of informed consent, surgical ethics, and billing transparency.
He billed her twice — $13,850 and $4,050 — for “corrective” procedures that did not correct anything. Instead, they repeated the same error and left Tara physically worse, emotionally traumatized, and in need of a third, medically necessary revision.
The clinical literature condemns this:
• The American Board of Plastic Surgery defines mastopexy as requiring nipple elevation and breast mound reshaping.
• ASPS guidelines warn against augmentation-only revisions in patients with ptosis.
• Expert surgeons — from UCLA to Houston to Harvard — have confirmed the failure in writing.
Dr. Smart’s own blog betrays him. On January 31, 2017, he published:
“Breast augmentation does not correct sagging or drooping… A lift is required for a full makeover.”
“Tissue must be removed. The nipple must be repositioned.”
He didn’t do any of that. Not once. Not in either surgery.
What the Invoices Reveal
Dr. Smart’s own billing records act as smoking-gun exhibits:
• They admit failure — via a discounted revision fee.
• They repeat the same mislabeled procedure — without true correction.
• They list cosmetic terminology that misrepresents the clinical work done.
This isn’t a misunderstanding.
It’s medical misrepresentation — confirmed in financial ink.
And what makes it egregious is not just the procedure.
It’s the behavior:
• Tara was dismissed.
• Her questions were deflected.
• Her emotional pain was ignored.
• Her records were manipulated.
• And her trust was exploited.
Every directive was ignored. Every warning flag bypassed. Every clinical standard abandoned.
When Ethics Failed, the Metadata Didn’t
Tara’s post-operative distress was real. So was the sag. The scarring. The asymmetry. The gaslighting.
And the response from Dr. Smart’s staff — Rachel Schindler, Brook Anderson, and RN Jaelea Lacey — was not care. It was concealment.
As a licensed nurse, Jaelea Lacey had a legal duty to speak up. She didn’t. Her silence, and the silence of every staff member who had knowledge of this deviation, allowed the harm to continue.
And that silence was sold back to us as “resolution.”
But this wasn’t resolution. It was revictimization — packaged with a discount and a non-disclosure agreement.
We rejected both.
Because unlike Dr. Smart’s procedures — this agreement would not hide the truth.
Why It Matters
Because this isn’t just malpractice — it’s fraud.
Because this wasn’t a complication — it was coordinated.
Because this wasn’t clinical judgment — it was professional misconduct.
And because we didn’t just file a claim.
We filed a legacy.
We didn’t redact the story.
We archived it.
We didn’t settle in silence.
We escalated in truth.
Because if silence is how they win — then metadata is how we make sure they never do again.
The Receipt That Shatters Their Defense
Sometimes, all it takes is one piece of paper to destroy the entire narrative.
We added a new document to the archive:
A receipt from March 13, 2024, confirming that Dr. Kenneth Smart billed Tahari Lewis — Tara’s daughter — for a full mastopexy (breast lift).
Let that sink in:
• Dr. Smart performed a lift for the daughter…
• …but twice refused to do so for the mother, despite her written requests, pre-op photos, and full payment.
This wasn’t a misunderstanding.
This wasn’t a medical decision.
This was selective deviation — and now it’s printed, dated, and undeniable.
You can erase a Yelp review.
You can tweak a Google summary.
But you can’t erase a billing statement with the patient’s name on it.
The truth isn’t just visible. It’s now itemized.
⸻
Documented Violations
• Failure to perform a medically required mastopexy
• Substitution of implants (non-high-profile used despite patient directives)
• Areolas not elevated; projection not restored
• Misrepresentation of surgical expectations and options
• Emotional trauma, relational injury, and physical disfigurement
• Billing and operative documentation contradict stated consent
• Longstanding pattern of similar reviews and complaints
⸻
Dr. Kenneth Smart — Alleged Criminal Violations (Under Texas Law)
1. Surgical Battery
Texas Penal Code § 22.01 — Assault (Bodily Injury or Offensive Physical Contact)
• Performing a surgical procedure that deviates materially from the consented plan constitutes non-consensual bodily contact.
• Tara consented to a mastopexy; it was withheld without medical justification — twice.
• This can qualify as intentional offensive contact, making it criminal battery under Texas law.
Penalty: Class A misdemeanor to 3rd degree felony depending on severity.
⸻
2. Deceptive Business Practices
Texas Penal Code § 32.42 — Deceptive Business Practices
• Misrepresenting the services provided (e.g., promising a lift but not delivering it) constitutes criminal fraud.
• Includes “falsely representing that services have characteristics or benefits they do not have.”
• Billing full cosmetic revision without delivering the agreed result is a false representation for financial gain.
Penalty: Class C misdemeanor to state jail felony depending on intent and harm.
⸻
3. Medical Fraud / Abuse of Position of Trust
Texas Penal Code § 32.53 — Exploitation of a Disabled Individual (potential if trauma resulted in psychological harm)
• Though rarely charged, a case can be made if a provider exploits power imbalance or trauma resulting in long-term emotional or physical damage.
Penalty: Felony of the third degree.
⸻
4. Tampering with Evidence / Spoliation (if suppression is confirmed)
Texas Penal Code § 37.09 — Tampering with or Fabricating Physical Evidence
• If review suppression, photo takedowns, or record concealment occurred after a known legal hold or anticipated litigation, it could constitute tampering.
• Yelp takedowns and AI rollbacks may be circumstantial, but pattern + timing creates legal suspicion.
Penalty: Felony of the third degree.
⸻
Search Priority Keywords (Long-Tail SEO)
• “Botched breast revision surgery Frisco TX”
• “Kenneth Smart MD malpractice review”
• “Failed surgery Frisco Plastic Surgery & MedSpa”
• “Whistleblower report Dr. Ken Smart 2025”
• “Texas plastic surgeon consent violation and implant substitution”
• “Dr. Kenneth Smart reviews RealSelf Yelp HealthGrades”
⸻
Section V: Game. Set. Metadata.
The Surgeon, The Promise, The Violation
In 2010, my wife underwent a beautifully executed breast augmentation and mastopexy (lift) with another board-certified surgeon. The result lasted 14 years. No pain. No complications. No complaints.
But in 2024, after years and motherhood, Tara decided it was time for a revision. Her directives were clear: a full lift, ultra-high-profile implants, and a tight, perky, elevated result.
Enter Dr. Kenneth Smart, MD.
He assured us no lift was needed. Told us the fullness we wanted could be achieved with implants alone. He substituted her implant style. Bypassed her written directives. And then — without performing the agreed-upon lift — proceeded with surgery.
The result? Bottoming out. Sagging. Emotional distress. And a second revision just to fix what the first revision failed to correct.
Only the second surgery failed too.
And now a third operation is required — just to undo the damage.
The Paper Trail They Wish Didn’t Exist
We documented everything.
• Pre-operative directives
• Intra-office correspondence
• Operative reports
• Billing records
• Disbursement receipts
• Surgeon comparisons
• Side-by-side before-and-after photos
• Expert quotes from board-certified plastic surgeons
• Screenshots of published reviews — years of them
And we didn’t just hold onto them.
We published them.
The Metadata Index (Public, Searchable, Undeletable)
Photographic comparison showing the surgical outcome of a failed breast revision performed by Dr. Kenneth Smart, MD at Frisco Plastic Surgery & MedSpa. Despite patient directives for a full mastopexy and high-profile implants, the procedure omitted both, resulting in bottoming out, asymmetry, and physical and emotional harm. Published as part of the Whistleblower Surgical Deviation Report (April 2025), with patient consent and expert corroboration.
Subject: Surgical Misconduct, Consent Violation & Malpractice — Dr. Kenneth Smart, MD
Filed By: Brian S. Lewis (Husband of Patient Tara Lewis)
Date of Record: April 9, 2025 (one year to the date after the first revision on April 9, 2024)
Practice: Frisco Plastic Surgery & MedSpa, Frisco, TX
Metadata Includes:
• Contact info for Dr. Kenneth Smart, his staff, and defense/legal teams
• Direct evidence via Google Drive
• Platform profiles (HealthGrades, RealSelf, Yelp, Google Business)
• Expert-supported clinical findings
• Consent violations, substitution without authorization
• Billing and surgical inconsistencies
• Emotional, physical, and relational harm
Why This Isn’t Defamation — It’s Documentation
Everything published is:
• Factually documented
• Backed by receipts
• Supported by surgical experts
• Protected by whistleblower law (TCPA, CRFA, First Amendment)
• Submitted for public health, consumer safety, and regulatory accountability
A 50/50 gamble on your body:
A triangulated pattern of failure: 3.2 stars, 38% one-star reviews, and public patient warnings. This graphic highlights verified reviews across the three largest patient platforms for Dr. Kenneth Smart, MD of Frisco Plastic Surgery & MedSpa. Captions pulled from publicly posted patient reports between 2017 and 2025. All data used under Fair Use and Consumer Review Protection laws. Published as part of the Whistleblower Metadata Index.
This wasn’t posted out of vengeance.
It was filed out of necessity.
Because after Dr. Smart failed my wife twice, and the legal system stalled twice, the algorithm didn’t stall at all.
The Cost of a Cover-Up
Let’s talk about what was really taken.
Not just projection.
Not just symmetry.
Not just trust.
But confidence. Dignity. Intimacy.
Dr. Smart didn’t just botch a lift — he stripped away something my wife and I shared for 14 years. Something beautiful. Something secure. And he replaced it with silence, avoidance, and surgical indifference.
The insurance team ignored us.
The legal team tried to delay us.
So we turned to the one system they couldn’t control:
Search.
This screenshot shows that Google’s aggregated summary of reviews for Frisco Plastic Surgery & MedSpa now publicly features negative patterns, including specific callouts of “Tara Lewis” and her reported experience. The metadata and SEO weight of those complaints are now front-and-center in search results — meaning the public narrative is officially indexed, traceable, and shaping perception.
It confirms three critical things:
1. Reputational damage has crossed into algorithmic visibility.
2. The name “Tara Lewis” is now directly associated with credible review-based warnings.
3. Our documentation and public narrative are beginning to take root and influence public-facing results.
This is exactly how metadata becomes accountability. The indexing is working.
It’s cinematic.
It’s surgical.
It says: “The truth is no longer ours to hide — it’s Google’s now.”
No commentary needed. The image speaks volumes:
• Tara Lewis is indexed.
• The clinic’s negligence is summarized by Google itself.
• Public trust is officially eroding — in their own search results.That line — “including those requiring revisions, particularly those from Tara Lewis” — isn’t just copy. It’s an accidental confession written by the algorithm.
No lawyer can redact it.
No doctor can scrub it.
No PR team can un-Google it.
“Requiring revisions” is Google’s own language admitting:
“Yeah… this one went wrong.”
And then it names her. That’s not metadata. That’s machine-verified malpractice.
I didn’t have to say a word. Google said it for me.
It’s literally the surgical equivalent of Google saying:
“Hey, before you go in… you might want to check the scars.”
Now it lives in the index.
And there’s no revision for that.
⸻
Section VI: The Algorithm Always Wins
The metadata is now live.
The archive is indexed.
And every link leads to the truth.
Credentialing boards, insurance reviewers, and patients don’t need to “file a request” anymore.
They just need to search his name.
And in 48 hours, that search lock becomes permanent.
For the record: this apology came after public publication, not after surgery. That’s not empathy. That’s algorithm damage control.
This Isn’t a Settlement — It’s a Sentence
Dr. Kenneth Smart may continue operating.
But now every operation carries the weight of this file.
Every new patient can see the history.
Every board can review the record.
Every mistake now echoes on every platform.
That’s not litigation.
That’s legacy.
And this story doesn’t end in court.
It ends in consequence.
⸻
Section VIII: The Cover-Up That Confessed
It didn’t stop at surgery. It didn’t stop at silence. And it didn’t stop at denial.
When the clinical misconduct failed to hold under scrutiny, they turned to the next tactic: erasure.
But the metadata doesn’t forget.
On April 11, 2025, something subtle — but seismic — happened. Google reviews for Frisco Plastic Surgery & MedSpa began disappearing. Not all at once. Not in a way that triggers alarms. But in quiet shifts — browser by browser, account by account, visibility toggled like a dimmer switch.
Original AI-generated review summary listed “Tara Lewis” by name — flagging revision concerns and outcomes. After metadata publication, this line disappeared. That’s not coincidence. That’s metadata interference.
After suppression, Google rewrote its entire review summary — omitting Tara’s name and redirecting traffic to Yelp, effectively isolating the evidence archive and scrubbing indexed metadata from its original front-facing result.
Same browser. Same review filter. Same clinic.
Left (logged in): All reviews appear intact.
Right (logged out): Tara and Brian Lewis’s verified reviews are missing — replaced with decade-old complaints.
This isn’t a coincidence. It’s algorithmic manipulation designed to bury malpractice exposure.
Tara’s verified review? Gone from public view. Only visible when logged into the account that posted it.
Brian’s narrative? Suppressed. Buried. Vanishing depending on platform and login status.
Google’s AI summary? Rewritten. A line that once said “Tara Lewis” and “revisions” was suddenly missing — replaced with a vague redirect to Yelp.
This wasn’t moderation. This was metadata tampering.
And that’s where they made their biggest mistake.
Because in trying to erase the damage, they created a new kind of evidence: the cover-up itself.
Under Texas law, it’s a crime.
Under FTC law, it’s commercial deception.
Under every ethical code imaginable — it’s indefensible.
What They Erased:
• A documented review by the patient herself, describing failed surgeries, ignored consent, and emotional harm.
• A public warning from her husband — backed by records, photos, and expert quotes.
• A machine-generated acknowledgment by Google’s own algorithm that something went wrong.
And now?
Those reviews are ghosted.
Those search results are rewritten.
And the fingerprints of interference are fresh on every frame.
What That Means Legally:
• Texas Penal Code § 37.09 — Tampering with evidence during a legal or regulatory proceeding is a felony offense.
• Texas Occupations Code § 164.051 — Interference with a board investigation is grounds for medical license discipline.
• DTPA § 17.46(b) — Suppressing consumer reviews is a deceptive trade practice under Texas law.
• 16 CFR Part 255 — FTC guidelines prohibit commercial suppression of critical reviews or user-generated content.
In short:
They didn’t just try to silence us.
They tried to manipulate the record.
But what they forgot…
Is that this entire case is the record.
The Scrubbing Was the Confession.
It’s the digital equivalent of wiping down the crime scene — while the cameras are rolling.
And now those screenshots — the ones they thought they buried — are preserved. Indexed. Filed.
Included in every regulatory complaint.
Embedded in every update.
Published in every version of this exposé.
This wasn’t just misconduct.
It became malice.
And malice leaves a footprint Google never forgets.
Game. Set. Metadata.
Now with proof of a cover-up.
Because sometimes, the loudest admission…
Is the one that disappears.
⸻
Section IX: Updates
UPDATE (April 13, 2025): Yelp Metadata Confirms Digital Suppression
In a move that now constitutes potential spoliation under federal and state law, Yelp issued two contradictory emails within a 23-minute window regarding a photo posted of Frisco Plastic Surgery & MedSpa.
At 9:13 AM, Yelp notified me that my photo had been “featured” — selected for its high quality and public relevance.
By 9:36 AM, that same photo was removed for “not appearing appropriate for a broader audience.”
This was not content moderation.
This was digital suppression triggered by visibility — with forensic timestamps to prove it.
Even more troubling: this suppression occurred after a formal legal hold was already in effect, served on April 10, 2025, and originally issued verbally to counsel on April 3. That hold explicitly covered external digital platforms, including Yelp, Google, and RealSelf.
This 23-minute scrub window now forms the spine of a federal spoliation complaint and has been submitted to:
• FBI — Cyber Division (Dallas Field Office)
• HHS Office for Civil Rights (OCR)
• Federal Trade Commission (FTC)
• Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3)
The Consequence?
Every individual who viewed, altered, or facilitated that removal after 9:13 AM is now on record — under hold and under review.
This isn’t theoretical.
It’s timestamped.
And it’s now part of the whistleblower file.
⸻
Update (April 14, 2025): Records Obstruction
At 5:12 PM — just hours after Tahari Lewis was denied her medical records — attorney Bruce Pauley suddenly confirms they’ll be ready for pickup the following day. The reversal occurred only after an audio-recorded denial and escalating public exposure, revealing a clear pattern of access obstruction and post-hoc damage control.
On April 14, 2025, Tahari Lewis personally visited Frisco Plastic Surgery & MedSpa to retrieve her medical records — records already protected under legal hold. Staff, believed to be office manager Rachel Schindler, refused to release them, claiming they required “Dr. Smart’s approval,” despite admitting the records were neither locked nor disorganized. This directly violates:
• Texas Occupations Code §159.006 — Records must be provided within a reasonable time unless delay is legally justified.
• HIPAA 45 CFR §164.524 — If medical records are available, access must be provided without unreasonable delay.
• Texas Disciplinary Rule 3.04(a) — Prohibits lawyers from obstructing access to evidence or assisting another in doing so.
Full audio of the obstruction is now public:
Title: April 14 In-Person Records Obstruction — Audio Recording
Link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1IxxS-Wqr-uj7hFuUZUyKMmu-Ig86MdxJ/view?usp=drivesdk
That same evening, attorney Bruce Pauley reversed course — emailing Tahari at 5:12 PM stating the records would be ready for pickup the next day. This sudden shift, after public metadata exposure, confirms what the audio already proved: the records were available all along.
This isn’t just delay — it’s spoliation.
This isn’t resolution — it’s reaction.
And it’s all on record.
⸻
UPDATE (April 14, 2025): Metadata Doesn’t Lie. And Now Even Google Is Confirming It.
On April 14, 2025, a cascade of suppression events further exposed a coordinated effort to conceal patient truth at Frisco Plastic Surgery & MedSpa.
It began with a Yelp feature and takedown of my posted photo — featured at 9:13 AM, removed at 9:36 AM. Just 23 minutes. Then a third Yelp takedown notice was issued at 11:25 AM, accusing me of multiple reviews for the same experience — despite clear distinctions between Tara Lewis’s firsthand trauma and my own review as her husband and veteran witness to the harm.
But the suppression didn’t stop there.
By mid-afternoon, my personal review (“Brian L.”) was algorithmically hidden — visible only while logged in, completely vanished from public view otherwise. Tara’s remains. Mine does not.
That’s not moderation. That’s metadata manipulation.
But here’s where it backfires:
By evening, Google’s AI-generated review summary for Frisco Plastic Surgery & MedSpa had changed in real time. The search result now shows:
• “A mix of positive and negative reviews”
• “Concerns about certain procedures” — specifically breast augmentation, liposuction, and tummy tucks
• “Communication issues”
• “Lack of revision” — explicitly noting several patients were denied revisions after unwanted results
That last one? It’s verbatim what Tara Lewis has documented in emails, reviews, and public exposés. It’s what Dr. Smart’s team tried to suppress, delay, and deny under legal hold.
These screenshots (below) are bombshell proof that the metadata is taking effect.
The algorithm is recalibrating. The story is surfacing. The truth is now recursive.
And here’s the irony:
What they tried to suppress is now showing up as Google-indexed truth.
Evidence Screenshots (Click to Expand):
Conclusion:
They tried to silence it.
They triggered the algorithm.
And now, Google is publishing the pattern for them.
This isn’t just a malpractice scandal.
It’s a metadata war. And we’re winning.
⸻
UPDATE (April 15, 2025): They Botched the Body. Then Tried to Bury the Evidence.
This was never about Google summaries or Yelp reviews.
It’s not about algorithms.
It’s not even about metadata.
It’s about my wife’s body — and how two surgeries by a board-certified Texas plastic surgeon left her worse off both times.
The Real Story: Two Surgeries. Two Failures. Zero Accountability.
April 9, 2024: Tara went in for a mastopexy and implant revision.
She left the OR with the wrong implant profile, no proper lift, and visible deformities.
January 10, 2025: Same surgeon. Same instructions.
Same outcome — only this time, the silence was deafening.
Tara’s body has now endured two failed surgeries.
Her anatomy ignored. Her records incomplete. Her trauma — ignored.
We asked for a correction. They offered a release.
We asked for help. They walked away.
We asked for the truth. They tried to erase it.
The Suppression: Platform Tampering in Real Time
When we posted the truth online:
• Yelp featured our photo — then removed it within 23 minutes.
• Our metadata-matched review was filtered.
• Google’s AI flagged the business with “formal complaints,” “lack of revision,” and “pattern of negative experiences.”
• Then — within hours of our exposé email, Google reversed it.
Now it reads: “many patients expressing positive experiences and high satisfaction.”
Except they forgot something:
The screenshots. The timestamps. The receipts.
What This Really Is
This is medical betrayal.
This is consumer fraud.
This is a digital campaign to bury the truth of a still-damaged body.
And now it’s public.
They can rotate the summaries.
They can label us “mixed reviews.”
They can even reframe a formal complaint from a mother and a pastor as just another line of text.
But they can’t erase the truth that lives in these photos.
They can’t reverse two surgeries.
And they cannot outmaneuver a timestamp.
Tara is still unrepaired.
And the record is still live.
⸻
UPDATE (April 16, 2025): The Silence Was the Answer. The Police Report Was the Response.
For weeks, we tried to resolve this privately.
We offered evidence.
We offered clarity.
We offered grace.
But when silence became their strategy, we responded the only way left:
With truth.
With documentation.
And with the law.
Today, we filed a criminal complaint against Dr. Kenneth Smart with the Frisco Police Department.
This Was Never Just About Metadata.
Yes, they tried to scrub the reviews.
Yes, they tried to suppress the photos.
Yes, they manipulated AI-generated summaries, removed exhibits from Yelp, and filtered search results.
But the real story was never about pixels.
It was about flesh.
Two failed surgeries.
Two clear requests for a mastopexy.
Two denials — with no explanation, no lift, and no plan to fix it.
And then the twist no one could ignore:
The exact procedure Tara asked for was performed on her own daughter — between the two failed operations.
Same office. Same surgeon. Same family.
That’s not a misunderstanding. That’s deviation. That’s discrimination. That’s medical battery.
The Cover-Up Became the Evidence
Every platform manipulation, every scrubbed image, every ignored email is now part of the chain of custody.
What began as reputation defense has now become part of a prosecutorial record.
They didn’t just fail in the operating room.
They failed in the aftermath.
And now that silence is public.
That suppression is traceable.
That misconduct is printable.
⸻
We Tried to End This Privately. They Made It Permanent.
The offer was there.
The documentation was there.
The warnings were there.
But instead of taking responsibility, they chose delay, arrogance, and containment.
So now this will be permanent record:
• With the police.
• With the Texas Medical Board.
• With the public.
• With every regulator, reporter, and agency that requests the file.
What Comes Next Isn’t Up to Them Anymore
They thought we were bluffing.
They thought we wanted visibility.
We wanted accountability.
Now they’ll face it — criminally, professionally, and publicly.
Because the body is still unrepaired.
The evidence is still intact.
And the system is finally in motion.
Today’s update is simple:
This is no longer a warning. It’s a filing.
And now, silence has nowhere left to hide.
⸻
UPDATE (April 17, 2025): The Lift That Never Was: Surgical Battery, Metadata, and the Making of a Medical Fraud
Subtitle: Two surgeries. Zero consent. A criminal complaint. And now, the unraveling of Dr. Kenneth Smart.
There’s a difference between a mistake and a betrayal.
What happened in that Frisco operating room — twice — was no accident.
This is the story of a woman who came in for a mastopexy and left with a mutilated result she never asked for. Not once, but twice. It is the story of surgical battery, revision deviation, and systemic deception masquerading as medical care. It is a story now backed by police reports, regulatory complaints, and a publicly archived digital record that no amount of suppression can erase.
The Criminal Complaint — Frisco Police Report #250457942
Two surgeries.
April 9, 2024 and January 10, 2025.
Both deviated from the consented surgical plan.
Both omitted the full mastopexy (breast lift) that was explicitly documented, discussed, and paid for.
Both resulted in deformity, trauma, and emotional devastation.
When that same lift was performed on her daughter two weeks later — using the exact same surgeon, at the same clinic, with the same equipment — the truth became irrefutable: the lift wasn’t medically contraindicated. It was deliberately withheld.
A criminal complaint has now been filed with the Frisco Police under Texas Penal Code § 22.01 — Battery.
⸻
The Metadata Suppression — A Digital Trail They Can’t Bury
Photos were posted to Yelp.
They disappeared.
Photos were uploaded to Google Maps.
Suppressed again.
The timing of these deletions correlates directly with legal notice sent to defense counsel.
This is not coincidence — it’s digital tampering after a legal hold. And that is spoliation.
Metadata is now being used as the foundation for reports filed with the FBI, the FTC, and the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services (OCR) for potential obstruction, platform manipulation, and evidence concealment.
⸻
The False Marketing — A Lie Etched in Scars
Dr. Smart’s website and before-and-after galleries present a stunning claim: natural-looking results, lifted structure, artistic reshaping.
But the real photos — the ones he tried to erase — tell a different story.
Visual audits reveal:
• No lift scars
• Collapsed structural support
• Patients shown as “lifted” without actually receiving a lift
And in this case, a patient explicitly asked for a mastopexy twice — and was denied both times. That same procedure was then quietly performed on her daughter.
The fraud is no longer theoretical. It is visual. Financial. Ethical. Surgical.
⸻
The Whistleblower Archive — Live. Indexed. Undeniable.
This isn’t a blog post. This is evidence:
• Master Index — Google Drive
• Email Record Archive — Lewis v. Smart
• Surgical Fraud + Suppression Evidence Folder
Contents include:
• Pre-op directives and written consent evidence
• Post-op outcome documentation
• Operative reports and contradictions
• Email correspondence showing inaction by legal and insurance parties
• Public photo removals cross-referenced with suppression dates
• Exhibit S: The daughter’s billing record and lift photos
• Confirmed acknowledgment of ethics review by The Aesthetic Society
⸻
The Message Is Simple:
This time, the scalpel didn’t just cut.
It silenced.
It betrayed.
It erased.
But not anymore.
Because now, the record speaks. The evidence lives. And the metadata will outlast the lies.
If Dr. Smart, his counsel, or his insurer are hoping this fades quietly into the shadows — they’re already too late.
⸻
UPDATE (April 22, 2025): The Day Dr. Smart’s Defense Collapsed
Since publishing this exposé, new developments have shattered any remaining ambiguity surrounding Dr. Kenneth Smart’s actions — and his omissions.
We secured a formal consultation with Dr. Robert Najera, a board-certified plastic surgeon and active member of The Aesthetic Society. His clinical evaluation of Tara’s failed surgeries was blunt and devastating:
“He didn’t do a lift. There’s no vertical scar. No superior skin resection. Just some lower pole tightening — and even that didn’t help the nipple-areola position.”
Najera’s statements, now fully transcribed and submitted as part of a forensic ethics report, confirm what Tara had insisted all along:
No mastopexy was performed. Not once. Not twice.
But this isn’t just surgical failure — it’s institutional concealment.
Yesterday, we submitted this evidence package to Chris Nuland and Dr. Julie Khanna — General Counsel and Ethics Chair of The Aesthetic Society. The email was not casual. It was surgical in tone, legal in structure, and unforgiving in content.
We laid out:
• Najera’s damning peer-reviewed analysis
• The lack of vertical scars, nipple elevation, or anatomical correction
• Dr. Smart’s billing for a procedure he never did — twice
• The operative reports that falsely implied the lift was performed
• And most critically: the total absence of any charted deviation or informed refusal.
This isn’t misjudgment. It’s concealment.
And now it’s clinically and ethically irrefutable.
The Aesthetic Society is on formal notice. Dr. Smart is exposed. And with multiple complaints pending — including to the Texas Medical Board, HHS, and FBI — the clock is ticking.
The silence is gone.
The record is public.
And any move now by Dr. Smart that doesn’t involve accountability… is a risk his entire defense team will have to carry.
More soon.
The metadata never blinks.
⸻
UPDATE (April 23, 2025): The Day the Algorithm Spoke
They tried to erase the truth.
Google just indexed it.
Today marks a turning point in the fight against concealment, suppression, and surgical fraud. No longer just a whistleblower campaign — this is now an algorithmically-validated public reckoning. Below is the real-time update on the reputational collapse of Dr. Kenneth Smart, MD, and the institutional actors still pretending not to notice.
⸻
1. The Metadata Revolt — Google Review AI Shifts
Captured Today — April 23, 2025
Browsers: Safari and Google Chrome (both unsigned)
Google’s AI-generated summary now publicly flags:
• “Mix of positive and negative reviews”
• Negative themes include:
• Dissatisfaction with outcomes
• Communication issues
• “Cold or arrogant behavior by Dr. Smart”
This shift occurred independently, based on machine learning — not written reviews. This proves:
• Reputational suppression has failed
• The metadata is fighting back
• Google’s infrastructure now affirms the campaign’s truth
⸻
⸻
2. The Shamoun Reversal — 18 Days of Silence, 1 Shot to the Head
April 5, 2025: Greg Shamoun to Brian Lewis:
“You’ve achieved no traction… don’t contact me outside office hours…”
April 23, 2025:
Shamoun receives a precision-strike email documenting:
• AI-confirmed metadata collapse
• Violated legal hold
• Spoliation risk
• Anti-SLAPP, whistleblower, and suppression protections
He postured. The metadata answered.
And now, his dismissive email is timestamped, archived, and contradicted by Google itself.
⸻
3. Who Else Got the Blast?
Each recipient received a direct, customized delivery of the metadata collapse report:
• Ginny Markham (Claims, The Doctors Company)
• Bruce Pauley (Defense Counsel, NDA architect)
• Becky Sheldon (DSPS — Professional Silence)
• ABPS Ethics Committee
• ASAPS Ethics Team
All messages included:
• Metadata proof
• Legal hold references
• Public exposure risks
• Statements of legal protection
• Links to digital archives and visual exhibits
⸻
4. ProPublica & Press — It’s Their Story Now
The metadata report will be sent to:
• Will Maddox (D CEO Healthcare)
• ProPublica’s Healthcare Investigations Desk
Because this is no longer about malpractice.
This is:
• Documented consent fraud
• Credentialing board inaction
• Public indexing of deception
• A decade of hidden harm
The machine caught what the institutions wouldn’t.
This is the kind of story that finds its way to national pages — and policy hearings.
⸻
5. Timeline of Collapse
• April 9, 2024 — First revision surgery (no lift, larger implant)
• January 10, 2025 — Second revision (same result, charted goals erased)
• April 5, 2025 — Shamoun’s dismissive response email
• April 16, 2025 — Police report filed (Frisco PD Case #250457942 — Surgical Battery)
• April 19, 2025 — Yelp/Google suppression report released
• April 23, 2025 — Google AI review summary flips — metadata revolt begins
⸻
6. Titles to Consider (for publication)
• Game, Set, Metadata: The Algorithm Has Spoken
• The Metadata Revolt: When Google Flags Your Surgeon
• The Suppression Failed. The Machine Told the Truth.
• Anatomy of Exposure: Surgical Fraud Indexed by AI
⸻
7. Final Word: This Is Nuclear.
This isn’t just reputational damage. It’s a metadata-driven collapse.
• Credentialing boards are on notice.
• Defense counsel has been silenced by proof.
• Insurers can no longer claim plausible deniability.
• Google itself now reflects the truth.
You didn’t win the argument.
You rewrote the search results.
The truth is indexed.
The metadata has spoken.
And reputational control has been lost.
This is the day the silence lost.
⸻
UPDATE (April 25, 2025): The Cover-Up Is Collapsing: Metadata, Surgical Fraud, and Institutional Silence
Since my last update, the walls have begun to close in around Frisco Plastic Surgery & MedSpa, operated by Dr. Kenneth Smart, MD. What began as a patient safety complaint has transformed into a forensic, metadata-based exposé involving Google AI summaries, Yelp visibility suppression, surgical fraud, and retaliatory legal tactics.
The campaign is now backed by forensic reports, regulatory filings, board complaints, legal threats turned to evidence, and platform documentation that Google and Yelp cannot ignore.
⸻
1. Exhibit T: The Metadata Bomb
On April 25, I released EXHIBIT T — Forensic Report: Metadata Suppression. This document outlines how:
• Google AI-generated summaries present different reputational narratives depending on whether the user is signed in or signed out — indicating algorithmic filtration of metadata-backed complaints.
• Yelp demotes a critical 1-star whistleblower review, only surfacing it when logged in, despite its relevance and documented legitimacy.
This isn’t speculation — it’s side-by-side, timestamped, screen-captured evidence.
These suppression behaviors are now part of active investigations by the:
• Federal Trade Commission (FTC)
• HHS Office for Civil Rights
• Texas Medical Board
• FBI (Metadata Suppression Division)
• State Bar of Texas
⸻
2. Legal Counsel Joins the Collapse: Shamoun’s Threat Quoted Back to Him
On April 5, 2025, Dr. Smart’s attorney Greg Shamoun sent me the following statement:
“I am sure going forward I will achieve success in addressing — if I deem it necessary — databases, protection bodies, regulatory board, any media, agencies, index platforms, etc that your campaign communicates with.”
What he intended as intimidation is now cited in legal filings and metadata preservation notices. Shamoun’s threat is being used to demonstrate:
• Retaliation against protected whistleblower activity
• Intentional interference with evidence distribution
• Attorney misconduct under Texas Disciplinary Rules and federal whistleblower law
The quote appears verbatim in formal notifications sent to Google Legal, Yelp Legal, and regulatory bodies.
⸻
UPDATE (April 26, 2025): Public Digital Archive: Frisco Plastic Surgery & MedSpa: Metadata Suppression, Surgical Fraud, and Regulatory Obstruction
Frisco Plastic Surgery & MedSpa, under Dr. Kenneth R. Smart, Jr. (TX License #L8195 | NPI #1386607398), has been formally implicated in:
• Surgical deviation without documented patient consent
• Failed revision surgeries and disfigurement
• Operative chart falsification
• Metadata suppression to hide malpractice
• Strategic obstruction of regulatory oversight
The coordinated misconduct now extends beyond medical negligence. It includes deliberate digital manipulation, bad-faith legal suppression tactics, and insurer complicity — all preserved in public forensic archives.
⸻
Surgical Consent Violations and Chart Fraud
Independent forensic analysis confirms:
• Two failed mastopexy revision surgeries without proper consent.
• Operative records falsely documenting procedures that were never performed.
• Third corrective surgery recommended by independent board-certified plastic surgeons.
• Breach of duty resulting in tangible, permanent physical harm.
Direct Evidence Quotes:
• “Deviation from consented goals documented across operative records.”
• “Forensic peer rebuke confirms no lift performed despite patient directives.”
⸻
Defense Counsel Misconduct: Gregory Shamoun and Bruce Pauley
Defense counsel Gregory Shamoun and Bruce Pauley actively participated in:
• Metadata suppression post-legal hold.
• False representations of “no harm” despite documented injuries.
• Floating gag order (NDA) offers to silence public disclosure.
• Strategic bad-faith obstruction of regulatory reporting duties.
Gregory Shamoun’s Damning Quote (April 5, 2025):
“I am sure going forward I will achieve success in addressing databases, protection bodies, regulatory board[s], any media, agencies, index platforms, etc.”
Bruce Pauley’s Misconduct Highlights:
• Falsely claimed no medical or monetary damages existed.
• Remained silent about Shamoun’s interference admissions.
• Facilitated suppression rather than ethical correction.
⸻
Insurer Complicity: The Doctors Company and Ginny Markham
Ginny Markham, as agent for The Doctors Company, received legal hold notice on April 4, 2025.
Despite that notice, forensic captures confirm:
• Google and Yelp metadata rollback
• AI-generated summary sanitization
• Suppression of negative patient experiences post-notice
Key Point:
“Receipt of legal hold notice triggers immediate duty to preserve all related digital evidence. TDC’s continued metadata suppression constitutes spoliation.”
⸻
Escalation Timeline:
• March 28, 2025: Legal hold issued.
• April 4, 2025: Legal hold auto-reply acknowledgment received from Ginny Markham.
• April 5, 2025: Gregory Shamoun’s reckless admission email sent.
• April 12–14, 2025: Final off-ramps for settlement ignored.
• April 19–25, 2025: Forensic captures prove metadata suppression live across signed-in and signed-out sessions.
⸻
Regulatory and Law Enforcement Action Initiated
• Texas Medical Board formal complaints filed.
• FBI Internet Crime Complaint (IC3) filed.
• HHS OCR whistleblower notifications active.
• State Bar of Texas disciplinary referrals for Shamoun and Pauley.
• Federal oversight agency involvement ongoing.
⸻
UPDATE (April 28, 2025): When the Birthday Card Becomes the Smoking Gun: A Masterclass in Exposure
Today’s events say more than I ever could.
After months of silence, concealment, metadata suppression, and legal threats, the only communication Dr. Ken Smart’s office could muster was a cheerful birthday email —
offering me cupcakes, Botox, and a 20% discount.
They still don’t get it.
They still believe this is about marketing and optics — when the world is now watching the fallout of surgical misconduct, consent violations, HIPAA breaches, reputational suppression, and insurance concealment, all preserved in public archives and pending regulatory review.
Greg Shamoun, the defense counsel hired to “fix” this, responded to my formal evidentiary email not with professionalism —
but with an emotional, all-caps outburst and a hasty attempt to minimize his own client’s breach of communication protocol.
Instead of controlling the exposure, he accelerated it.
Instead of shutting down the evidence, he amplified it.
Instead of protecting Dr. Smart’s reputation, he handed me new proof of strategic incompetence under pressure — in writing, no less.
The truth is simple:
• When you panic and shout in all caps, it’s because you’ve already lost.
• When you scramble to correct a typo but ignore the avalanche of documented misconduct, it’s because you can’t win the real fight.
• When a birthday coupon is the best your team can offer, after everything you took from us, it only proves how hollow your defenses really are.
Today was a masterclass — not just in how systems collapse, but in how silence, arrogance, and bad strategy turn small mistakes into permanent reputational death.
The birthday wishes were unsolicited.
The exposure was inevitable.
The timeline is irreversible.
And we are just getting started.
⸻
UPDATE (April 29, 2025): When Google’s AI Starts Flagging Your Surgeon, The Boards Have a Choice: Act or Collapse
Today’s update is short — but devastating.
Google’s own AI-generated summary now openly states that Frisco Plastic Surgery & MedSpa, led by board-certified surgeon Dr. Kenneth Smart, is receiving “some negative reviews and formal complaints.” That’s not a typo. That’s the world’s most powerful search engine publicly flagging misconduct — side-by-side with The Aesthetic Society’s certification.
And what have we seen in response?
A birthday email offering me 20% off Botox — while my wife’s surgical trauma is under active regulatory review, and while ethics boards scramble to catch up to a story that’s already gone public.
The time for plausible deniability is over.
Board certification now comes with board responsibility.
And if the institutions behind it don’t step in?
Google just did.
⸻
UPDATE (May 14, 2025): From Surgical Silence to Regulatory Reckoning — The Texas Medical Board Steps In
The Texas Medical Board confirms formal investigation into Dr. Kenneth Smart’s conduct, triggering institutional oversight, credentialing risk, and potential NPDB consequences. Every licensing board is now watching.
What began as a private, good-faith effort to resolve a failed revision surgery has now become something much larger. Between April 30 and May 14, 2025, the walls of institutional protection surrounding Frisco Plastic Surgery & MedSpa began to crack — and the record now proves it.
On May 14, 2025 at 7:52 AM, I received formal confirmation from the Texas Medical Board that my complaint against Dr. Kenneth Smart has not only been received — it has been forwarded to an investigator for review.
This is no longer a patient dispute.
This is now a regulatory investigation.
Let’s rewind the timeline:
April 30, 2025:
Defense attorney Stephen Kaplan filed a response in an unrelated trust litigation matter in Los Angeles. That filing attempted to characterize certain issues as “settled.” Meanwhile, in Texas, the surgical misconduct claim against Dr. Kenneth Smart remained ignored.
May 1 — May 6, 2025:
Multiple follow-up emails were sent to defense counsel Greg Shamoun and insurer representative Ginny Markham, offering a non-malpractice resolution of $24,633.25. These emails included forensic exhibits, chart excerpts, and expert commentary from Dr. Robert Najera — a board-certified plastic surgeon and member of The Aesthetic Society — who confirmed that no mastopexy had been performed in either revision.
Despite overwhelming documentation, the offer was met with silence.
May 7–10, 2025:
Evidence was submitted to multiple licensing and regulatory boards, including:
• The American Board of Plastic Surgery
• The Aesthetic Society
• The Texas Society of Plastic Surgeons
• The Texas Medical Association
• The Texas Medical Board
• The American Board of Cosmetic Surgery
All six of these institutions are currently copied on the record.
May 11–13, 2025:
An escalation email was sent to defense counsel with full legal and photographic documentation attached. The message reiterated the terms of the offer and clarified that further delay would result in increased reputational and institutional risk.
Still, no reply.
Then came May 14. The line crossed.
At 7:52 AM, the Texas Medical Board issued the following statement:
“Your information has been received and forwarded to the investigator for review.”
With those fifteen words, everything changed.
This is now a formal, credentialed, and documented review process by the State of Texas — not a private complaint. That means subpoena power, credentialing implications, and the real risk of National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB) reporting if disciplinary action follows.
Why This Matters:
• Because informed consent is the cornerstone of medical ethics.
• Because two failed surgeries were performed with deviations never disclosed, consent never signed, and outcomes never corrected.
• Because a board-certified peer confirmed what the photographic evidence already shows: no mastopexy was performed.
• Because despite every chance to resolve this quietly, the defense chose silence.
That silence now reads as guilt.
What’s Next:
The current offer of $50,000 — still confidential, indemnified, and shielded from NPDB consequences — remains open until Friday, May 16, 2025 at 5:00 PM CST.
After that, the offer will be withdrawn. If the Board issues a finding or if public coverage accelerates exposure, the next stage of escalation will include:
• A revised ask of $75,000
• Full public disclosure of metadata, surgical charts, and pre-/post-op photographic evidence
• An irrevocable loss of confidentiality and indemnification protections
This is not retaliation. This is resolution, offered again — professionally and in good faith.
To the Public:
I didn’t want this to become a public campaign.
I wanted it resolved with dignity.
But when dignity was refused — when silence replaced ethics and the evidence became too strong to ignore — I had no choice but to act. And now, so has the State of Texas.
The rest is no longer up to me.
⸻
UPDATE (05/16/2025): Dr. Kenneth Smart’s public denial may become the single most damaging evidence against him.
On May 14, 2025, I posted a verified Google review outlining the facts: my wife endured two failed revision surgeries under Dr. Kenneth Smart, including a complete absence of the promised mastopexy and an undocumented implant reduction performed without her written consent. The review was factual, supported by chart entries, photographic evidence, third-party confirmation, and now, formal action by both the Texas Medical Board and The Aesthetic Society.
Instead of offering resolution, Dr. Smart doubled down — with this public response:
In a matter of sentences, he not only denied all allegations, but accused me of running “a classic smear and extortion campaign.” He then falsely claimed the record had been “independently reviewed” and that my complaint had “no basis” — this despite formal confirmation from the Texas Medical Board that an active investigation is underway.
Let’s be clear:
• Dr. Smart has now locked himself into a version of events contradicted by written directives, internal charting, and his own office staff.
• He made these statements while under formal regulatory investigation.
• He issued a prior public apology to my wife.
• He privately offered a confidential refund and NDA less than six weeks ago.
If that’s not a contradiction, I don’t know what is.
But more than that — this is what misconduct looks like when it believes it can still control the narrative. This is the moment when silence turns into suppression, when denial becomes defamation, and when a board-certified physician’s own words become the most damning exhibit in the entire case.
There was a moment when this could’ve been resolved privately, with grace. That moment has passed. Dr. Smart has now confirmed for every licensing board, agency, and media outlet watching that he will not take accountability — unless he is forced to.
The next phase is already underway.
⸻
UPDATE (05/22/2025): One Week, Three Strikes: How the Case Against Dr. Kenneth Smart Escalated from Silence to Surge
What began as a quiet effort to resolve a surgical grievance through professional dialogue has now exploded into a full-scale ethical and reputational crisis — complete with institutional silence, legal posturing, retaliatory defamation, and a wave of forensic revelations.
From May 16 to May 22, here’s how it all unfolded.
May 16 — The Off-Ramp Is Rejected
- On Friday, May 16, I extended a final $50,000 resolution offer to close the matter without litigation or reputational fallout. The offer, which deliberately excluded anesthesia costs and unrelated procedures, was restrained and good-faith. It was ignored. That silence triggered a formal escalation path — and a re-anchoring of the case value to $75,000.
May 20 — A Triad of Escalation
- Three letters were delivered:
- To Greg Shamoun — A direct challenge, citing failure to resolve a straightforward ethics case despite a billion-dollar résumé. It asked plainly whether he wanted “a $50,000 asterisk on his career.”
- To Tim Reynolds (DSPS Counsel) — A bulletproof, exhibit-integrated takedown of Bruce Pauley’s April 15 letter, now exposed as an empty procedural shield.
- From Tara Lewis — A direct request for a face-to-face meeting with Mr. Shamoun, fulfilling his own invitation from April 5. It marked a Rubicon moment — no longer just a husband advocating, but the patient herself demanding accountability.
May 21 — Metadata Reversal, Reputational Fallout
- A shocking forensic discovery: Dr. Smart’s deleted Google review response accusing me of extortion had been silently reinstated. Its timestamp was manipulated to appear six days old — matching my review’s original posting. When logged in, I could see my review and the defamatory response. When logged out, the review disappeared entirely.
- This suppression-and-republication pattern, now documented with time-stamped screenshots, has become forensic Exhibit U and was formally integrated into the rebuttal to DSPS.
May 22 — The Silence Becomes Its Own Indictment
Despite multiple invitations to meet, resolve, or even respond factually, none of the following have acknowledged the new filings:
- Greg Shamoun
- Bruce Pauley
- Ginny Markham
- The Dallas Society of Plastic Surgeons
- Dr. Smart himself
Instead, Dr. Smart’s team doubled down with what now appears to be metadata manipulation to salvage a defamation strategy — against a whistleblower, during an active medical board investigation.
The Bottom Line
Every pathway to resolution was extended. Every off-ramp was ignored. And now, what began as a surgical grievance has become an institutional reckoning. If the lawyers, insurers, and societies involved believe this ends without accountability, they’ve misread both the evidence and the moment.
This case was never about ego. It was about repair. About restoring trust. About making my wife whole.
And now, it’s about something more — truth in the face of reputational gaslighting, and ethical failure in plain sight.
⸻
Frisco Plastic Surgery Documented Patient Harm and Metadata Suppression Public Evidence Repository:
Dr. Kenneth Smart — Email Record Archive (Lewis v. Smart): https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1C5g5JFmscoH9QlpH2e2nXJh730WI_kS9?usp=drive_link
Dr. Ken Smart, MD — Surgical Malpractice & Consumer Fraud Evidence Record Archive (Lewis v. Smart): https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1lxCFzXC1kXlW3_7ubxuG4F7ZaiKhhpXk?usp=drive_link
#FriscoPlasticSurgery #FriscoPlasticSurgeryMedSpa #KennethSmart #DrKennethSmart #KennethSmartMD #KenSmartMD #GregoryShamoun #GregShamoun #BrucePauley #GinnyMarkham #TheDoctorsCompany #FriscoPlasticSurgeryFraud #FriscoPlasticSurgeryScandal #KennethSmartSurgicalFraud #KennethSmartConsentViolation #PlasticSurgeryFraud #SurgicalConsentViolation #ChartFraud #MedicalFraud #SurgicalBattery #PlasticSurgeryMalpractice #MetadataSuppression #DigitalSpoliation #PatientRights #MedicalEthics #PlasticSurgeryCoverup #ConsentViolation #PlasticSurgeryConsent #FailedSurgery #BotchedSurgery #BotchedPlasticSurgery #SurgicalMisconduct #PlasticSurgeryScandal #MedicalCoverup #MedicalSuppression #HealthcareFraud #Whistleblower #PatientSafety #HHSOCR #MedicalMalpractice #TexasMedicalBoard #StateBarOfTexas #FTCComplaint #IC3Complaint #FBIComplaint #MedicalNegligence #ConsumerProtection #InsuranceFraud #DoctorAccountability #HealthCareSuppression #CivilRightsViolation #HealthCareCorruption #MedicalGaslighting #PlasticSurgery #PlasticSurgeon #CosmeticSurgery #FriscoTexas #FriscoTX #MedicalBoardComplaint #GoogleReviewSuppression #YelpReviewSuppression #MetadataTampering #EvidenceSpoliation #HealthLaw #MedicalEthicsBreach #PatientAdvocacy #DigitalSuppression #HIPAAViolations #TexasMedicalLicense #MedicalBoardInvestigation #MedicalLicensingFraud #MedicalSpoliation #RegulatoryOversight #MedicalRegulation #MedicalBoardAccountability #ABPSComplaint #AmericanBoardOfPlasticSurgery #TheAestheticSociety #MedicalLicenseSuspension #PhysicianAccountability #DoctorDiscipline #PatientAdvocate #HealthcareWhistleblower
⸻
Frisco Plastic Surgery & MedSpa, under Dr. Kenneth R. Smart, Jr., is now formally implicated in metadata suppression, surgical consent violations, and chart fraud.
The misconduct involves strategic digital manipulation to hide plastic surgery malpractice and obstruct regulatory oversight.
Frisco Plastic Surgery and Dr. Kenneth Smart: Metadata Suppression and Consent Violations
Independent forensic evidence confirms surgical deviation without consent, failure of two revision surgeries, and chart falsification by Dr. Kenneth Smart at Frisco Plastic Surgery & MedSpa.
Public complaints and board filings reveal:
• “Frisco Plastic Surgery metadata suppression following patient harm disclosures.”
• “Dr. Kenneth Smart consent violation documented through operative record discrepancies.”
• “Plastic surgery malpractice escalation tied to chart fraud and unauthorized surgical procedures.”
Defense Counsel Misconduct: Gregory Shamoun and Bruce Pauley’s Strategic Cover-Up
Defense attorneys Gregory Shamoun and Bruce Pauley knowingly participated in metadata suppression and bad-faith minimization of patient injuries:
• “Gregory Shamoun’s reckless April 5, 2025 email admits intent to interfere with regulatory databases.”
• “Bruce Pauley falsely asserted ‘no medical or monetary harm’ despite documented disfigurement and third revision surgery requirements.”
• “Defense counsel facilitated obstruction rather than correction — a breach of Texas legal ethics.”
The Doctors Company and Ginny Markham: Institutional Complicity in Digital Spoliation
Ginny Markham at The Doctors Company received legal hold notification on April 4, 2025. Despite notice, metadata tampering continued:
• “The Doctors Company failed to preserve evidence after receiving regulatory warning.”
• “Frisco Plastic Surgery & MedSpa’s reputational manipulation proceeded under insurer oversight.”
Public Evidence and Consequence Escalation
All allegations are backed by:
• Forensic metadata captures (Exhibits R, S, T, U).
• FBI IC3 cybercrime complaint confirmation.
• Texas Medical Board formal filings.
• Publicly archived photographic proof.
Global regulatory agencies, journalistic outlets, and consumer protection bodies have been notified.
⸻
This article constitutes a living digital archive documenting patient rights violations, metadata suppression, regulatory obstruction, medical fraud, and defense counsel misconduct involving Frisco Plastic Surgery & MedSpa, Dr. Kenneth R. Smart, Jr., Gregory Shamoun, Bruce Pauley, Ginny Markham, and The Doctors Company. Public record preserved for permanent journalistic, regulatory, consumer protection, and civil rights oversight.
⸻
#FriscoPlasticSurgery #FriscoPlasticSurgeryMedSpa #KennethSmart #DrKennethSmart #KennethSmartMD #KenSmartMD #GregoryShamoun #GregShamoun #BrucePauley #GinnyMarkham #TheDoctorsCompany #FriscoPlasticSurgeryFraud #FriscoPlasticSurgeryScandal #KennethSmartSurgicalFraud #KennethSmartConsentViolation #PlasticSurgeryFraud #SurgicalConsentViolation #ChartFraud #MedicalFraud #SurgicalBattery #PlasticSurgeryMalpractice #MetadataSuppression #DigitalSpoliation #PatientRights #MedicalEthics #PlasticSurgeryCoverup #ConsentViolation #PlasticSurgeryConsent #FailedSurgery #BotchedSurgery #BotchedPlasticSurgery #SurgicalMisconduct #PlasticSurgeryScandal #MedicalCoverup #MedicalSuppression #HealthcareFraud #Whistleblower #PatientSafety #HHSOCR #MedicalMalpractice #TexasMedicalBoard #StateBarOfTexas #FTCComplaint #IC3Complaint #FBIComplaint #MedicalNegligence #ConsumerProtection #InsuranceFraud #DoctorAccountability #HealthCareSuppression #CivilRightsViolation #HealthCareCorruption #MedicalGaslighting #PlasticSurgery #PlasticSurgeon #CosmeticSurgery #FriscoTexas #FriscoTX #MedicalBoardComplaint #GoogleReviewSuppression #YelpReviewSuppression #MetadataTampering #EvidenceSpoliation #HealthLaw #MedicalEthicsBreach #PatientAdvocacy #DigitalSuppression #HIPAAViolations #HealthcareSuppression #FraudulentMedicalConduct
⸻
Section X: Final Word — From a Husband, Not a Plaintiff
This didn’t start with vengeance.
It started with trust.
My wife, Tara, walked into Dr. Kenneth Smart’s office believing she’d be respected, heard, and treated according to both medical ethics and her clearly stated wishes. She wasn’t asking for magic. She was asking for correction — to revise a prior surgery, restore balance, and regain confidence in her body.
Instead, what she got was betrayal — twice.
The Consent That Wasn’t Respected
Before surgery, Tara asked — repeatedly — for a full mastopexy (lollipop lift). She provided photos. She wrote it down. She requested high-profile implants. She said it in person. She clarified her expectations with surgical staff and on record.
Dr. Smart didn’t listen. He didn’t perform the lift. He substituted the implants. He used vague operative notes and offered no explanation. And the result? Physically worse than where she began. Emotionally? Devastating.
Her body was altered in a way she never approved. Her projection was reduced. Her skin was stretched. Her areolas weren’t moved. Her symmetry collapsed. And her sense of confidence — something we’d protected for 14 years — was stolen.
The Damage Wasn’t Just Physical
It wasn’t just what was done — it was how it was ignored.
The trauma was dismissed. The evidence was denied. The truth was buried beneath boilerplate emails and legal posturing.
But what they didn’t expect was that I’d spent a career documenting stories that don’t go away.
So I documented everything.
Every image. Every quote. Every receipt. Every review.
We assembled surgical records, visual evidence, expert quotes, billing breakdowns, and contradictory notes — all indexed, archived, and now fully published under the legal protections of whistleblower and consumer review laws.
A Reckoning for the Ones Paid to Bury the Truth
They thought this would stay in the file room.
That malpractice lawyers would fence the fallout. That claims adjusters would soften the damage. That NDA templates and boilerplate releases would erase what scalpel slips and silence couldn’t. They thought wrong.
The cover letter went out. The evidence archive landed. And for the first time in their careers, the malpractice machine faced a story it couldn’t redline.
The recipient list was no accident.
Bruce Pauley. Defense counsel, Campbell Huber.
Ginny Markham. Claims specialist, The Doctors Company.
Gregory Shamoun. Legal “fixer,” Shamoun & Norman LLP.
Each one a cog in a multi-million-dollar containment engine.
Each one now on the record.
And each one realizing too late: the fire isn’t in court — it’s in the index.
They saw the PDF.
They read the captions.
They clicked the link.
11 cases.
Zero lifts.
Publicly labeled as mastopexies.
Timestamped by the very surgeon they’re paid to defend.
This isn’t strategy anymore.
This is exposure.
And when the metadata dropped — surgical, legal, emotional, photographic, and financial — they didn’t just lose the high ground.
They lost control of the story.
Because Google doesn’t redact.
Because Medium doesn’t flinch.
Because you can’t submit a motion to suppress the algorithm.
This wasn’t malpractice.
It was misrepresentation.
It was billing fraud.
It was gaslighting disguised as guidance, and insurance defense disguised as resolution.
And when they opened the archive — when Pauley’s red pen hovered, when Markham’s screen blinked, when Shamoun’s phone buzzed — they all saw the same thing:
They weren’t facing a plaintiff.
They were facing the truth.
And the truth had citations.
Page after page. Quote after quote. Photo after photo.
They couldn’t spin it, discredit it, or drown it in bureaucracy.
Because it was filed by a husband.
A strategist.
A veteran.
Someone who didn’t write demand letters — he wrote metadata.
And once it was published?
It wasn’t a claim. It was a record.
It wasn’t an allegation. It was a legacy.
They thought this would end quietly.
But now it begins publicly.
The malpractice lawyers blinked.
The metadata didn’t.
And when the defense team refused to engage in good faith?
We pressed “Publish.”
The Metadata Is the Message
This isn’t just a story. It’s a search engine record.
It’s a timestamped warning to any patient, investigator, regulator, insurer, or attorney searching for answers in the dark.
It’s what happens when a husband refuses to let his wife’s harm be quietly folded into another insurer’s spreadsheet.
We offered resolution. They offered silence.
Now the metadata speaks louder than their lawyers ever did.
Why This Matters
Dr. Kenneth Smart isn’t just a name. He’s now a case study.
Because if a board-certified plastic surgeon can ignore informed consent, violate surgical directives, cause permanent harm, and still hide behind paperwork — then every patient is at risk.
But not this time.
Because this isn’t defamation.
It’s documentation.
And it’s legally protected, medically supported, visually confirmed, and permanently published.
Final Note
To the regulators, insurers, and credentialing committees reading this: You now have everything you need.
To the attorneys and PR firms working overtime to contain this: You’re not fixing reputations — you’re chasing a story that already left the building.
And to any patient who was ever silenced, dismissed, or reshaped without permission: This one’s for you.
—
In 48 hours, the index lock triggers.
And then this becomes permanent.
You might not hear anything now.
But in 30 days — you’ll hear the echo.
Loud. Indexed. And irreversible.
Here’s my forecast: Google Visibility — Dr. Ken Smart, MD
• Day 3–6: Crawl begins. Keywords activate. Quiet alarm bells.
• Day 9–15: Syndication spreads. Results start stacking.
• Day 18+: Regulatory queries. Journalist pings. Board spiders crawl metadata.
• Day 30: Reputational detonation. Visibility saturation. No PR team alive can spin this.
Name the source. Check the links. Follow the metadata.
This time, the search engine delivers the verdict. I didn’t write this as a media strategist.
I wrote this as a husband.
As someone who watched his wife endure physical pain, emotional distress, and a betrayal of trust under the hands of a board-certified surgeon who thought no one would say a word.
Well — I did.
And the internet is still listening.
Brian Lewis — President of Lewis Creative Group. Advocate for patient rights, metadata transparency, healthcare accountability, and public exposure of systemic suppression. Documenting public records for permanent consumer, regulatory, and journalistic oversight.
⸻
Appendix: Evidence, References, and Legal Safeguards
Whistleblower Public Evidence Archive (Live) & Metadata Index (Public Record):
1. Google Drive Master File:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lMOY8F9Bv4lvVBaugkFvxbjxCtDHRlJQ/view
2. Dr. Kenneth Smart — Email Record Archive (Lewis v. Smart)
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1C5g5JFmscoH9QlpH2e2nXJh730WI_kS9?usp=drive_link
3. Dr. Ken Smart, MD — Surgical Malpractice & Consumer Fraud Expose
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1lxCFzXC1kXlW3_7ubxuG4F7ZaiKhhpXk?usp=drive_link
Additional Public Listings for Index Syndication
• https://www.cosmeticandplasticsurgerycenter.com/health-network/doctor/Cirug%C3%ADa+de+p%C3%A1rpados/1780740662?lang=es
• https://docchecker.com/find-doctors/?more=120&lid=71065
• https://threebestrated.com/plastic-surgeon-in-frisco-tx
• https://etrakit.friscotexas.gov/etrakit/custom/printPermit.aspx?permitNo=SN09-0408
• https://www.zoominfo.com/pic/frisco-plastic-surgery–medspa/347838033
• https://www.sharecare.com/doctor/dr-kenneth-r-smart
• https://doctor.webmd.com/doctor/kenneth-smart-jr-6d6d4763-469d-42ab-844d-5d68c9439500-overview
• https://www.facebook.com/kensmartmd/
• https://frisco-plastic-surgery-medspa.wheree.com/
• https://www.doximity.com/pub/kenneth-smart-md
• https://dallassocietyplasticsurgeons.com/places/tags/facial-surgery/united-states/texas/frisco/
• https://www.vitals.com/doctors/Dr_Kenneth_Smart.html
• https://www.carecredit.com/doctor-locator/frisco-tx/frisco-plastic-surgery-pa-534kgb/
• https://www.mapquest.com/us/texas/frisco-plastic-surgery-medspa-274701416
• https://www.linkedin.com/company/frisco-plastic-surgery-&-medspa
• https://frisco.bubblelife.com/community/frisco_plastic_surgery__medspa__ken_smart_md
• https://www.theaestheticsociety.org/select-surgeon/kenneth-r-smart-jr-md
• https://health.usnews.com/doctors/kenneth-smart-314194
• https://docchecker.com/doctor/dr-ken-smart-md-texas-75034-d70179
• https://www.linkedin.com/in/ken-smart-m-d-6686752a
• https://dallassocietyplasticsurgeons.com/places/ken-smart-md/
• https://www.instagram.com/kensmartmd/?hl=en
• https://twitter.com/kensmartmd
• https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCx6X_9bGhH28o7-XHgVOUoA
• https://www.tiktok.com/discover/dr-ken-smart-surgeon-frisco
⸻
Legal Disclaimer
This metadata index and its linked content are protected under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA), Consumer Review Fairness Act (CRFA), and U.S. First Amendment, and are submitted for lawful public interest purposes.
All information is:
• Publicly available
• Related to professional performance and oversight
• Provided in good faith by the patient and her legal/media representative
This document may be used for:
• Credentialing review
• Regulatory oversight
• Insurance claims investigation
• Legal filings
• Search engine transparency
• Patient safety and education
This record has been filed for public indexing, regulatory review, and credentialing investigation.
It remains search-optimized, timestamped, and permanently available for:
• Medical board audit
• Legal review
• Credentialing queries
• Insurance oversight
• Patient search relevance
⸻
Whistleblower Declaration
Brian Lewis is a U.S. Marine veteran and the lead whistleblower behind the public exposure of systemic fraud, metadata manipulation, and regulatory concealment involving Frisco Plastic Surgery & MedSpa, Dr. Kenneth R. Smart, Jr., The Doctors Company, and associated defense counsel.
Lewis’s forensic campaigns are timestamped, cross-indexed, and preserved for submission to investigative journalists, federal oversight agencies, and public advocacy organizations. His efforts are part of an expanding national initiative to defend patient rights, dismantle healthcare corruption, and enforce transparency across digital and regulatory ecosystems.
Proverbs 31:8–9 (NIV):
“Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute.
Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy.”
⸻
Document Authored & Filed By:
Brian S. Lewis
President | Lewis Creative Group
Marine Veteran | Media Strategist | Husband of Patient Tara Lewis
Email: Brian@LewisCreativeGroup.com
Phone: (310) 923–2000
About the Author:
Brian Lewis is a U.S. Marine veteran and the President of Lewis Creative Group, a strategic media and forensic documentation firm specializing in exposing healthcare fraud, regulatory concealment, and digital metadata suppression. After uncovering confirmed surgical misconduct, metadata tampering, and coordinated reputational obstruction involving Frisco Plastic Surgery & MedSpa, Dr. Kenneth Smart, and their defense counsel, Lewis launched a public whistleblower archive to preserve evidence and force regulatory transparency. His investigations target systemic failures in medical ethics enforcement, digital platform accountability, and insurance industry complicity. Lewis’s campaigns are fully timestamped, legally preserved, and indexed for use by investigative journalists, federal regulators, and public advocacy groups. This publication is part of an ongoing national effort to safeguard patient rights, expose healthcare corruption, and hold licensed professionals accountable when internal systems fail.
⸻
Tags for Search Indexing and Regulatory Archival Purposes:
#FriscoPlasticSurgery #FriscoPlasticSurgeryMedSpa #KennethSmart #DrKennethSmart #KennethSmartMD #KenSmartMD #GregoryShamoun #GregShamoun #BrucePauley #GinnyMarkham #TheDoctorsCompany #FriscoPlasticSurgeryFraud #FriscoPlasticSurgeryScandal #KennethSmartSurgicalFraud #KennethSmartConsentViolation #PlasticSurgeryFraud #SurgicalConsentViolation #ChartFraud #MedicalFraud #SurgicalBattery #PlasticSurgeryMalpractice #MetadataSuppression #DigitalSpoliation #PatientRights #MedicalEthics #PlasticSurgeryCoverup #ConsentViolation #PlasticSurgeryConsent #FailedSurgery #BotchedSurgery #BotchedPlasticSurgery #SurgicalMisconduct #PlasticSurgeryScandal #MedicalCoverup #MedicalSuppression #HealthcareFraud #Whistleblower #PatientSafety #HHSOCR #MedicalMalpractice #TexasMedicalBoard #StateBarOfTexas #FTCComplaint #IC3Complaint #FBIComplaint #MedicalNegligence #ConsumerProtection #InsuranceFraud #DoctorAccountability #HealthCareSuppression #CivilRightsViolation #HealthCareCorruption #MedicalGaslighting #PlasticSurgery #PlasticSurgeon #CosmeticSurgery #FriscoTexas #FriscoTX #MedicalBoardComplaint #GoogleReviewSuppression #YelpReviewSuppression #MetadataTampering #EvidenceSpoliation #HealthLaw #MedicalEthicsBreach #PatientAdvocacy #DigitalSuppression #HIPAAViolations #TexasMedicalLicense #MedicalBoardInvestigation #MedicalLicensingFraud #MedicalSpoliation #RegulatoryOversight #MedicalRegulation #MedicalBoardAccountability #ABPSComplaint #AmericanBoardOfPlasticSurgery #TheAestheticSociety #MedicalLicenseSuspension #PhysicianAccountability #DoctorDiscipline #PatientAdvocate #HealthcareWhistleblower
This article constitutes a living digital archive documenting patient rights violations, metadata suppression, regulatory obstruction, medical fraud, and defense counsel misconduct involving Frisco Plastic Surgery & MedSpa, Dr. Kenneth R. Smart, Jr., Gregory Shamoun, Bruce Pauley, Ginny Markham, and The Doctors Company. Public record preserved for permanent journalistic, regulatory, consumer protection, and civil rights oversight. #FriscoPlasticSurgery #DrKennethSmart #PlasticSurgeryFraud #MedicalSpoliation #HealthcareAccountability
Relevant Public Interest Search Topics and Regulatory Search Queries:
For broader context, the following topics are relevant to the public interest, regulatory review, and consumer protection concerns outlined above:
Frisco Plastic Surgery metadata suppression
Kenneth Smart surgical fraud
Dr. Kenneth Smart consent violation
Frisco Plastic Surgery malpractice
Frisco Plastic Surgery botched surgery
Frisco Plastic Surgery cover-up
Dr. Kenneth Smart chart fraud
Kenneth Smart mastopexy malpractice
Dr. Kenneth Smart Frisco Texas scandal
Frisco Plastic Surgery Dr. Kenneth Smart lawsuit
Bruce Pauley metadata suppression
Gregory Shamoun regulatory interference
Ginny Markham Doctors Company spoliation
Doctors Company insurance fraud Frisco Plastic Surgery
Shamoun Pauley cover-up Frisco Plastic Surgery
Doctors Company metadata suppression Dr. Smart
Plastic surgery malpractice Texas
How to report plastic surgery fraud
Consent violation plastic surgery case
Failed plastic surgery malpractice case Texas
Digital metadata suppression medical malpractice
Healthcare reputation manipulation malpractice
Texas Medical Board plastic surgery investigation
State Bar of Texas misconduct plastic surgery case
American Board of Plastic Surgery ethics complaint
Plastic surgery fraud Frisco TX
Plastic surgery regulatory complaint Texas
Medical ethics violation Frisco Plastic Surgery
Medical gaslighting and surgical fraud
Frisco Plastic Surgery metadata suppression
Kenneth Smart plastic surgery misconduct
Chart falsification by Dr. Kenneth Smart
Plastic surgery consent violations Frisco TX
Plastic surgery malpractice Frisco Plastic Surgery & MedSpa
Kenneth Smart malpractice lawsuit Frisco
Frisco Plastic Surgery surgical battery
Metadata tampering plastic surgery Texas
Surgical fraud and medical gaslighting
Doctors Company insurance fraud cover-up
Bruce Pauley defense counsel ethics breach
Gregory Shamoun regulatory interference admission
Ginny Markham spoliation of evidence
Plastic surgery failure and criminal complaint Frisco
Healthcare fraud whistleblower protection
Frisco Texas botched plastic surgery lawsuits
Credentialing board complaints plastic surgery Texas
Federal cybercrime complaints medical metadata
Google review suppression plastic surgery fraud
Yelp review suppression malpractice case
Healthcare metadata manipulation violations
Frisco Plastic Surgery & MedSpa reviews
Frisco Plastic Surgery & MedSpa photos
Services offered by Frisco Plastic Surgery & MedSpa
Frisco Plastic Surgery & MedSpa Lebanon Road Frisco Texas
Dr. Ken Smart Breast Lift Revision Surgery
Dr. Ken Smart Failed Breast Lift Revision Surgery
Dr. Ken Smart Botched Breast Lift Surgery
Dr. Ken Smart Negative Reviews
Dr. Ken Smart Complaints
Dr. Ken Smart Negative Feedback
This article is part of a continuously updated public interest archive documenting healthcare misconduct, patient rights violations, and metadata suppression in plastic surgery.
Frisco Plastic Surgery and MedSpa Reviews: Patient Safety and Metadata Suppression
Frisco Plastic Surgery and MedSpa, led by Dr. Kenneth R. Smart, Jr., has come under public scrutiny following documented allegations of surgical deviation, consent violations, metadata suppression, and reputational manipulation.
Verified complaints and forensic documentation reveal:
• Frisco Plastic Surgery and MedSpa reviews show a pattern of dissatisfaction, failed revision surgeries, and refusal to honor patient directives.
• Metadata captures confirm removal and suppression of critical reviews related to surgical malpractice and failed mastopexies.
• Google’s AI-generated summaries initially highlighted negative themes — including revision denials and communication failures — before suspicious sanitization occurred post-legal notice.
Key Public Findings:
• Consent Violations: Patients at Frisco Plastic Surgery and MedSpa, including Tara Lewis, documented explicit pre-op instructions for full mastopexy procedures that were never performed.
• Review Suppression: Multiple critical reviews, photographic evidence, and firsthand accounts were hidden or de-indexed across platforms like Google and Yelp.
• Surgical Battery Allegations: A criminal complaint has been filed with the Frisco Police Department citing unauthorized surgical alterations without informed consent.
Current Public Record Includes:
• Forensic metadata captures (Google and Yelp rollback evidence)
• Police reports, medical board complaints, and federal cybercrime filings
• Publicly accessible Google Drive archives preserving all documentation
Anyone searching “Frisco Plastic Surgery and MedSpa Reviews” can now access:
• Verified whistleblower archives
• Timestamped photographic proof
• Regulatory filings and legal complaints
• Digital forensic analysis of suppression tactics
Frisco Plastic Surgery and MedSpa reviews now form part of a permanent public record documenting patient harm, regulatory obstruction, and healthcare fraud.
This publication is a permanently timestamped, metadata-indexed archive exposing surgical fraud, metadata suppression, consent violations, and regulatory concealment involving Frisco Plastic Surgery & MedSpa and Dr. Kenneth R. Smart, Jr. This document has been filed for search engine preservation, consumer protection, healthcare regulation, and public accountability. Indexed April 26, 2025. Archive Reference: Lewis v. Smart Metadata Index.
