Debra Toner v. Stuart T. Tani, D.D.S.
Published: Apr. 4, 1998 | Result Date: Oct. 29, 1997 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: 705127 Verdict – $0
Judge
Court
San Diego Superior
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Defendant
Alexander F. Giovanniello
(Giovanniello Law Group)
Experts
Plaintiff
Ruben Romero
(medical)
David C. Greb
(medical)
Defendant
Michael Bennett
(medical)
Leland J. Fitzgerald
(medical)
Facts
From Sept. 22, 1994, until Feb. 17, 1995, plaintiff Debra Toner, a 37-year-old janitor, was a patient of defendant Dr. Stuart Tani, a dentist. On her first visit, the plaintiff's primary complaint was that a filling had fallen out of tooth No. 2. X-rays were taken and a temporary filling was placed. It was also noted that a root canal had been started by another dentist and was not completed. The plaintiff was referred to an endodontist in a separate group (owned by the defendant) for the root canal of tooth No. 2. On Sept. 24, 1994, the root canal was commenced by irrigating and medicating the tooth. The plaintiff had an appointment to finish the root canal on Oct. 14, 1994, but she cancelled the appointment. On Oct. 28, 1994, the plaintiff came in to the office for a post-operative check-up, at which time, the defendant noted that the plaintiff still needed to have the root canal completed, and that she also required a filling on tooth No. 28. The plaintiff's root canal was completed on Nov. 4, 1994, and she was referred back to the defendant for restoration of the tooth. On Dec. 2, 1994, the defendant took impressions of tooth No. 2 for the crown, placed a post and build up, and scheduled an appointment for Dec. 14. The plaintiff failed to attend the appointment. On Jan. 12, 1995, it was noted that the crown had open margins and would need to be remade. On Jan. 27, 1995, additional impressions of tooth No. 2 were taken to remake the crown. Additionally, a composite filling was placed in tooth No. 28. On Feb. 17, 1995, the crown for tooth No. 2 was delivered with permanent cement, and a filling was placed in tooth No. 29. The plaintiff was scheduled for another visit in order to place fillings in teeth Nos. 30 and 31, but she failed to keep the appointment, and had no further contact with the defendant. In April 1995, the plaintiff began treatment with another dentist for numerous problems allegedly unrelated to teeth Nos. 2 and 28. In August 1995, the plaintiff complained of extreme sensitivity in tooth No. 28, and an X-ray showed recurrent decay. An attempt was made to refill the tooth, and later a root canal treatment was begun. At the plaintiff's request, the root canal was not completed until months later. While working on another tooth, the plaintiff's subsequent dentist noticed an open contact on tooth No. 2. The crown fell off a number of times, and it was recemented. Eventually, the plaintiff's dentist determined that the crown was ill-fitting, and in May 1997, the crown was replaced. The plaintiff brought this action against the defendant based on dental malpractice and negligence theories of recovery.
Settlement Discussions
The plaintiff made a C.C.P. º998 settlement demand for $20,000. The defendant made no offer.
Specials in Evidence
$2,167 $5,898
Injuries
The plaintiff claimed extreme sensitivity in tooth No. 28 requiring a root canal and replacement of the crown on tooth No. 2.
Other Information
The verdict was reached approximately _____ years and _____ months after the case was filed. A settlement conference/ arbitration /mediation was held on ____/____/19____ before ________________ (name) of _____________ (affiliation) resulting in ___________ .
Deliberation
30 minutes
Poll
12-0
Length
four days
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390