Facts

Plaintiff Kelly Reed, a 22-year-old nurse sought dental treatment from Dr. Paul H. Van Horne for replacement of fillings in her lower left molars. Upon initially attempting to anesthetize the teeth for the procedure, Dr. Van Horne struck the mandibular nerve with his syringe needle. He used a standard mandibular block for the injection procedure. Plaintiff reacted in pain.

After a few moments of discussing that the needle inadvertently had hit plaintiff's mandibular nerve, plaintiff agreed to let Dr. Van Horne proceed with another injection to anesthetize the area. Dr. Van Horne performed the next injection with a different technique, known as a Gow-Gates technique by putting the needle in a slightly different location. Upon injecting the second time, Dr. Van Horne again hit the mandibular nerve. Plaintiff claimed that Dr. Van Horne held her down while he continued the injection, forcing the second injection upon her. The injection did not provide sufficient anesthesia.

Dr. Van Horne, using an Akinosi injection technique in a different area of the mandibular nerve, performed a third injection. The third Akinosi injection satisfactorily obtained anesthesia, and Dr. Van Horne completed the restoration of the fillings in the lower molar teeth. Subsequent to the dental procedure, plaintiff noticed sensory deficit on the side of her tongue and hypersensitivity in areas of her cheek and lower mouth.

After returning to see Dr. Van Horne a few times, plaintiff decided to seek treatment elsewhere. She eventually saw Dr. Ross for the continuing numbness, tingling, and hypersensitivity. Dr. Ross referred her to an oral surgeon, Dr. Hiser. Dr. Hiser believed that plaintiff was suffering from TMJ and prescribed treatment for TMJ.

Plaintiff claimed that the numbness, tingling, and hypersensitivity did not subside, and became worse. She subsequently moved to Oregon where she sough further dental treatment. She claimed that she still was left, at the time of trial, with severe, disabling significant pain, tingling, and hypersensitivity, which spread to other areas of her face and into her neck.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiff contended that Dr. Van Horne should not have attempted the second injection with the same needle that he used during the first injection. The needle tip became bent or burred after the first injection and caused greater nerve damage than should have been caused when he performed the second injection.

Plaintiff also contended that the second injection was, in fact, not a different area, not a different technique and was simply a retraumatization of the same area of the nerve as with the first injection. She claimed that it was below the standard of care to use the same needle for the second injection and also that Dr. Van Horne committed a battery by performing a second injection into the same area when plaintiff consented only to allow a second injection into a different area of her mouth.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Dr. Van Horne contended that the risk of injuring the mandibular nerve during the injection was a risk inherent in performing the procedure. He claimed it was essentially a blind type of injection and that he followed all the appropriate landmarks to perform the injection within the standard of care. The second injection actually was performed in a different area of the mouth than the first injection. He claimed that he had plaintiff's consent to perform the second injection where he performed it. The second injection, which also injured the nerve, also was a risk inherent in performing the injection procedure.

Dr. Van Horne claimed that the risk of injuring the mandibular nerve was a risk inherent in any of the injection techniques used to try and anesthetize the mandibular nerve. The nature and extent of plaintiff's claimed nerve deficit was far beyond the scope of what should have developed from an injection injury to the nerve. Plaintiff had psychogenic pain unrelated to actual injury to the nerve.

He claimed that all of his care was within the standard of care and that the complication simply was a risk inherent in the injection procedure.

Settlement Discussions

Plaintiff initially demanded $250,000, but prior to trial reduced the demand to $75,000.

Specials in Evidence

$12,000

Injuries

Plaintiff claimed permanent paresthesia and pain in the right side of face and loss of sensation. Plaintiff claimed the need for ongoing care and treatment with a neurologist but did not claim any loss of earnings. Plaintiff only claimed the future cost of medical care through a neurologist.

Result

Defense verdict.

Other Information

INSURER: The Dentists Insurance Company insured the defendant.

Deliberation

two hours

Poll

12-0

Length

six days