Barbara Kitzig v. William D. Nordquist, DMD
Published: Dec. 13, 1997 | Result Date: Nov. 20, 1997 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: 699015 – $482,238
Judge
Court
San Diego Superior
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Defendant
Experts
Plaintiff
Graham Simpson
(medical)
Joel Berger
(medical)
Albert A. Cutri
(medical)
Defendant
Dennis G. Smiler
(medical)
Tom Chess
(medical)
Facts
In 1992, plaintiff Barbara Kitzig, a 55-year-old homemaker, paid $17,980 to defendant Dr. William Nordquist, a dentist, to replace an upper denture anchored by her own teeth with teeth anchored by eight dental implants. The defendant advertised himself to the San Diego senior community as a board certified dental implant specialist with the "finest implant training available anywhere in the world today." Plaintiff alleged that his only hands-on training consisted of a 15-day introductory course in implants taught by another general dentist. Defendant alleged that he had hundreds of hours of implant training and was a member of the American Board of Oral Implantology/Implant Dentistry. In addition, defendant alleged that he advised plaintiff against undergoing the placement of a fixed system but she insisted on a fixed system rather than a removable system supported by implants. The plaintiff brought this action against defendant based on fraud, breach of contract and dental malpractice theories of recovery.
Settlement Discussions
The plaintiff made a C.C.P. º998 settlement demand for $99,999. Per defendant, plaintiff made a demand for $500,000 later lowered to $99,999. The defendant made a C.C.P. º998 offer of compromise for $9,999.
Specials in Evidence
$37,633 $34,000
Injuries
The plaintiff suffered two failed sinus lifts/bone augmentation procedures; plaintiff claimed eight of the nine implants defendant placed failed, requiring five reconstructive surgeries. The plaintiff has one more surgery to undergo.
Other Information
The verdict was reached approximately one year and seven months after the case was filed. Per plaintiff, the jury found that defendant knowingly and recklessly made false representations with an intent to defraud plaintiff. Further, that plaintiff was not aware the representations were false and acted in justifiable reliance upon the truth of the representations. However, the jury found that defendant's misrepresentations did not cause plaintiff's damage - his breach of contract and negligence did. Also per plaintiff, since this verdict was published, many other seniors have come forward and reported they were also misled by this false advertising. The defendant advertised he was a board certified "oral implantologist" by the American Academy of Implant Dentistry (AAID) and the International Congress of Oral Implantology. However, there is no specialty in dental implants recognized by either the American Dental Association or the state of California. It is illegal in California for a dentist to advertise as a specialist if that claimed speciality is not recognized by the state of California. According to plaintiff, defendant testified that he knowingly, consciously and deliberately violated Business and Professions Code º651 and was the guy "behind the scenes" in a lawsuit filed the month before trial by the AAID against the California Board of Dental Examiners to block enforcement of Business and Professions Code º651. Defendant reported that more than one-half of the states in the U.S. do recognize implantology as a separate specialty, and the Federal Trade Commission declared similar restrictions in advertising as a violation of restraint of trade. Per defendant, a lawsuit has been filed in federal court by the American Academy of Implant Dentistry challenging the constitutionality of Business and Professions Code º651. POST TRIAL MOTIONS: A motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and/or a new trial is pending.
Deliberation
three days
Poll
12-0 (most issues)
Length
10 days
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390