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.

Professional Malpractice
Negligence
Dental Procedure

Tatyana Sims v. Fred Gilman, D.D.S.

Published: Dec. 9, 2006 | Result Date: Sep. 20, 2006 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: YC051893 Verdict –  Defense.

Court

L.A. Superior Redondo Beach


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Ira N. Katz


Defendant

David M. Hillings
(Clinton & Clinton)


Experts

Plaintiff

Gregory P. Cole
(medical)

Defendant

Gary R. Harmatz
(medical)

Facts

On Oct. 18, 2004, the minor plaintiff, then age 8, presented to the defendant's Inglewood dental office with complaints of pain in deciduous teeth L and K on the lower left arch. She was accompanied by her mother, Latasha Gilmore, age 26, who, after discussing treatment options with the defendant, agreed to have pulpotomies performed on the two teeth and placement of stainless steel crowns.

The minor plaintiff contended that during the injection of anesthetic, the needle pierced her cheek. Plaintiff also claimed that the defendant's failure to use a rubber dam during the procedures allowed the caustic chemical material used to fill the canals to drip onto the outside of her cheek causing a burn or allergic reaction.

Following the alleged incident the minor plaintiff was at the front office for approximately 60 minutes coloring in a coloring book while her mother was being treated. Upon leaving the office, the mother made an appoint to return the following day for a post op check.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiff contended that the defendant was negligent during the administration of the anesthetic causing the needle to pierce the cheek and was negligent for failing to use a rubber dam durng the procedures to protect the skin from injury by the chemicals used.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Defendant and his dental assistant denied that the anesthetic needle ever pierced the cheek. The only witness to the alleged incident was the minor plaintiff herself. There was no bleeding and neither the plaintiff or her mother (who was having her wisdom teeth extracted in an adjacent dental chair) complained about the treatment. A rubber dam was not used since there was insufficient tooth structure on the adjacent teeth to hold a clamp to keep the rubber dam in place. Appropriate isolation techniques were used including cotton rolls and gauze. The treatment performed was routine and without incident.

Settlement Discussions

Defendant did not consent to settle.

Injuries

Burn on outside of left cheek which has fully healed. The mother had a separate cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress.

Result

Defense verdict.

Deliberation

0.5 hours.

Poll

12-0.

Length

2.5 days


#114431

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

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