Source-linked public-record research into lawsuits, outcomes, related proceedings, court rulings, public statements and litigation chronology.
Public statement source · YT210
Dr. Tabans “Patients” ARE TERRIFIED OF HIM
Records a claim that about ten other patients of the named surgeon contacted the speaker privately and declined to speak because of non-disclosure agreements, and a larger unquantified estimate of the same.
Evidentiary treatment: This is a public statement by a party, indexed separately from court findings, party filings and this project’s research classifications. Quotations below are transcribed from the video’s own YouTube auto-generated captions and timestamped from the caption cues covering the passage quoted; each links back to that exact moment so a reader can verify it. Auto-captions are machine-generated and mis-transcribe names and figures, so wording is preserved as transcribed rather than silently corrected. No transcript is reproduced here, and neither the video’s inclusion nor its relevance tier is a judicial finding.
Timestamped statements
What these tiers are: “Strong”, “Moderate” and “Context” are this project’s research classification of how closely a public statement bears on the documented filing-restriction indicators. They are not judicial findings, not an adjudication of anything said in a video, and not a determination that Frank Tufano is a vexatious litigant — no court in this dataset has made that determination. Court findings, party statements and research classifications are kept in separate evidence layers throughout this site; see Methodology.
How a tier is assigned.Strong — the statement names a tracked case or dispute and describes filing conduct of the kind the indicators document: repeat filing on the same dispute, filing after an adverse decision, or filing framed as imposing cost on the opponent. Moderate — it bears on litigation conduct or chronology in a tracked dispute, but the case link is tentative or the statement describes something other than the speaker’s own filing behaviour. Context — general commentary with no specific tracked case identified.
What the factor labels are. Each statement is also labelled with the filing-restriction factor its own words describe, so the reason for a classification is visible rather than implied. Most factors correspond to a criterion recorded in the indicator data, and the three that do not are marked as such there — a filing that has only been threatened has no docket to record, and an allegation about a court is the speaker’s characterisation rather than a recorded criterion. Repeat filing on the same dispute, filing after an adverse decision and cost imposition as stated motive are the three that can qualify a statement as Strong; threatened or prospective filing, self-reported filing volume, filing announced or confirmed, adverse outcome described and judicial or forum bias alleged record related but weaker signals. A statement that describes no filing conduct carries no factor badge. A factor records what the speaker said — not that a court found it, and not that anyone has been determined a vexatious litigant.
How quotations are marked: An ellipsis (…) inside a quotation marks words left out between two passages of the same video, which can sit some minutes apart. The omitted wording is not reproduced here, and a clip on the statement supercut plays the whole span from the quotation’s first word to its last — so it includes the omitted material. Quotations without an ellipsis are continuous speech.
Uh, personally, I've been directly messaged by about 10 people that have been botched by Dr. Taban who refused to speak to me about it. They go, "Oh, I signed an NDA. I don't want to speak about it. I'm scared." Keep that in mind.
A quantified first-person claim that roughly ten other patients of the named surgeon contacted him privately and declined to speak, citing non-disclosure agreements. Unevidenced and unverifiable from the video; the record is that he says so. The reported replies are other people's words and the framing clause is kept so that attribution stays visible.
Why this classification: The surgeon is named in the speaker's own words, which ties the statement to a tracked dispute, but no filing, court or case is mentioned and the claim concerns third parties' silence rather than his own litigation conduct.
There's probably hundreds, if not over a thousand patients that Dr. Tobon has botched and then forced to sign an NDA. And most people have, you know, 99% of his victims have fallen to his tactics of keeping people silenced and they will not speak out.
The scale version of the same allegation, offered with an explicit self-hedge of probably and if not. The 99 percent figure is rhetorical rather than a count, and no position is taken on the claim.
Why this classification: It is an unquantified estimate about third parties with no case, filing or court attached, which places it at the general commentary level.