This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Personal Injury
Dental Malpractice
Intentional Concealment

Nancy Bryant v. Chun K. Kim, DDS

Published: May 23, 2015 | Result Date: Apr. 27, 2015 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: INC 1106045 Verdict –  Defense

Court

Riverside Superior


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Greg W. Garrotto
(Law Offices of Greg W. Garrotto)


Defendant

Thomas G. Wianecki
(Wesierski & Zurek LLP)


Experts

Plaintiff

Richard A. Bullock
(medical)

Defendant

Barton A. Kubelka
(medical)

Facts

Plaintiff Nancy Bryant had a longstanding snoring problem. She came to defendant Dr. Chun K. Kim, DDS, who specializes in Dental Sleep Medicine, for an oral appliance to alter her airway, hoping this oral appliance would lessen or eliminate the snoring disorder. After delivery of the oral appliance, a temporomandibular joint, or TMJ, examination was performed. TMJ treatment was recommended and undertaken in two phases, splint therapy and composite buildups.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiff claimed that no TMJ condition ever existed, and that the treatment was unnecessary. Plaintiff also claimed intentional concealment and fraud.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Defendant claimed that the treatment was warranted and successful. Defendant contended that informed consent was obtained, and that the standard of care was met for both and the oral appliance and TMJ treatment. Defendant also claimed that the one-year statute of limitations expired on Oct. 23, 2009.

Injuries

Plaintiff alleged needing a full mouth reconstruction at a costs of $80,000. The defense disputed this and claimed that composites could have been removed at a minimal expense with little loss of existing tooth structure.

Result

Defense verdict.

Other Information

The case was bifurcated on the one-year statute of limitations. FILING DATE: July 26, 2011.

Deliberation

one hour

Poll

10-2 (for Oct. 23, 2008 as the beginning of the Statute of Limitations date), 12-0 (no intentional concealment), 12-0 (fraud)

Length

three days


#112083

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390