Facts

Defendant Roe D.D.S. extracted two of plaintiff's teeth, performed bone grafts, and placed restorations over several of plaintiff's teeth. Roe D.D.S. also forwarded a biopsy of plaintiff's gum tissue to the pathologist for his review.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiff contended that Roe D.D.S. removed a viable tooth, injected procaine into plaintiff's breast scars in order to alleviate jaw-pain and touched her inappropriately. Roe pathologist, associated with Roe hospital, compounded the fraud by identifying a non-existent disease. The plaintiff suffered emotional injuries and the loss of a viable tooth and surrounding bone. The plaintiff claimed lack of informed consent as plaintiff believed Roe DDS when he said that he was medical doctor, although he only had a dental degree.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS:
Defendants contended that plaintiff appeared with several failing root canals and abscesses indicating infection. After a full discussion of the risks, benefits and alternatives, plaintiff elected to extract the teeth and a portion of her gum tissue. The extractions were performed within the standard of care. The referral of the biopsy tissue to a radiologist was appropriate treatment. Roe D.D.S. adamantly denied any injection of Procaine below the patient's neck.

Specials in Evidence

$12,000

Result

The case settled for $129,999.99 (Roe hospital and pathologist paid $30,000 and later Roe DDS contributed $99,999.99).