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
Medical Malpractice
Dental Negligence

Noushin Torabian v. Ahmad Fahid, Terrell F. Pannkuk

Published: Oct. 8, 2005 | Result Date: Sep. 9, 2005 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: SC081721 Verdict –  $0

Judge

Joe W. Hilberman

Court

L.A. Superior Santa Monica


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Sayre Macneil


Defendant

David M. Hillings
(Clinton & Clinton)

N. Denise Taylor
(Taylor DeMarco LLP)


Experts

Plaintiff

Susan Roche
(Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP) (medical)

Joseph Schulz
(medical)

Defendant

Richard Feinstein
(medical)

Steven B. Graff-Radford
(medical)

Facts

On Jan. 27, 2003, plaintiff Noushin Torabian went to see defendant Ahmad Fahid, an endodontist, after being referred to him by her dentist. An X-ray revealed that tooth #14 had deep decay and was sensitive to cold. Dr. Fahid performed a root canal. When the plaintiff returned for a follow-up visit, she continued to complain of pain in the upper left quadrant. Dr. Fahid treated tooth #15 in an effort to alleviate the pain. When the plaintiff returned, complaining of continued pain, Dr. Fahid performed a root canal on tooth #15. Dr. Fahid performed follow up treatment on tooth #15, but because the plaintiff did not return for further treatment, did not complete root canal treatment for tooth #14. On Feb. 18, 2003, the plaintiff went to see defendant Terrell F. Pannkuk, an endodontist, complaining of continued pain in the upper left quadrant. Dr. Pannkuk determined that the cause of the pain was related to tooth #15, which had an unfilled portion of one of the canals. He retreated tooth #14 and #15. On Feb. 25, 2003, the plaintiff called Dr. Pannkuk's office and complained of pain and double vision in her left eye. His associate prescribed an antibiotic. The following day, the plaintiff went to the Santa Barbara County clinic complaining of pain and double vision. The clinic scheduled an MRI and other tests to be performed in two days. However, the next day, the plaintiff went to the emergency room of Cottage Hospital, where she underwent extensive testing. Her double vision resolved, her pain abated, and she was discharged. The doctors at the hospital were unable to give a definitive diagnosis of the cause of the plaintiff's pain and double vision, but considered the possibility that the symptoms may be related to Tolosa Hunt syndrome, multiple sclerosis, lupus, or vasculitis. The plaintiff's pain completely resolved over the next several weeks.

Settlement Discussions

The plaintiff served each defendant with a C.C.P. Section 998 demand of $37,500. Dr. Fahid and Dr. Pannkuk each served plaintiff with a C.C.P. Section 998 offer for a waiver of costs.

Injuries

The plaintiff suffered 30 days of pain and double vision for two days.

Result

The jury returned a verdict for both defendants.

Deliberation

one hour

Poll

12-0 (defense for both defendants)

Length

8.5 days


#117040

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

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