Source-linked public-record research into lawsuits, outcomes, related proceedings, court rulings, public statements and litigation chronology.
Public statement source · YT119
I did not sign any Waiver!!!
Records the speaker rebutting a waiver and assumption-of-risk argument he says is being raised against his malpractice claim, and asserting an informed-consent theory against the surgeon at the centre of the eye-surgery dispute.
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.
So the latest tactics of Tiban's reputation management company is to say that I signed a waiver so I have no action. First of all, a simple Google search will tell you that a waiver does not prevent malpractice because it does not shield the provider from liability for injuries resulting from gross negligence, reckless conduct, or failing to meet the standard of care.
The speaker engages with the merits of a waiver argument he says is being raised against his malpractice claim, contending that a waiver does not shield a provider from gross negligence or a failure to meet the standard of care. He sources the argument to his own internet research.
Why this classification: Bears on the substance of the tracked eye-surgery claims and identifies the party by name once the caption spelling is corrected, but no case, court or filed defence document is named, and the waiver point is attributed to a reputation management company rather than to counsel.
Second of all, I didn't sign a waiver that said I can go blind. I can be disfigured. I can be crosseyed and I was not informed of the actual risks of the surgery. You're forgetting that Dr. Tobon lied about the risks of the surgery and the possible negative consequences from the actual percentages to what could happen.
States an informed-consent and misrepresentation theory against the surgeon named in the eye-surgery dispute, listing the injuries alleged. This research takes no position on whether the allegation is true.
Why this classification: A dated party statement of what the claim against a tracked defendant is said to be, but it describes no filing and identifies no case or court.
So, I 100% have a legitimate case. He committed medical malpractice. He ruined my life. But these secret society degenerates, these gangstalkers are trying to protect him and justify what he did to [caption track ends]
A first-person assertion that the malpractice claim is meritorious, stated together with a theory that organised groups are protecting the surgeon.
Why this classification: Fixes the date on which the meritorious-claim assessment and the coordinated-actor framing were being stated together, four days after a terminating sanction in the California action, while naming no case and announcing no filing.