Facts

Plaintiff Farideh Sepehr, 49, went to general dentist, defendant Dr. Thomas Burriss because of pain to tooth number 6 (upper right cuspid). Dr. Burriss performed a root canal to tooth number 6 on April 29, 2005. The plaintiff continued having pain to the tooth, so Dr. Burriss did an apical incise and drain procedure to No. 6 on June 2, 2005. No drainage or sign of infection was found which would have explained plaintiff's continued pain.

The plaintiff claimed that during the second apical procedure by Dr. Burriss, she felt a shooting electric-type sensation. From that point forward, she experienced extreme and unrelenting facial pain as well as diminished corneal reflex and other neurologic deficits.

The plaintiff was seen by endodontist Louis Schwarzbach on July 26, 2005 and he removed a separated file from tooth number 7 and redid a root canal to tooth number 7 which had been poorly done in Iran.

Dr. Schwarzbach referred the plaintiff to pain management specialist Steven Graff-Radford, D.D.S., on July 21, 2005. Dr. Graff-Radford found all cranial nerves intact and diagnosed myofascial pain emanating from plaintiff's TMJ.

The plaintiff was later seen at UCLA on Sept. 23, 2005, where she underwent two apicoectomies to teeth numbers 6 and 7 without relief of pain.

The plaintiff returned to Dr. Graff-Radford on Sept. 26, 2005, at which time TMJ pain had improved and plaintiff was diagnosed with trigemenal deafferentation, most likely as a result of the apicoectomies performed at UCLA.

The plaintiff went on to treat with approximately 20 to 30 other health care practitioners to alleviate her pain, including neurologist Dr. Heikali, pain management specialists Dr. Richeimer at USC and Dr. Glenn Clark, D.D.S., at UCLA. Drs. Heikali and Richeimer recommended a three-part program of physical therapy, vocational rehabilitation, and psychotherapy. If this program fails, the plaintiff will need to undergo gamma knife surgery.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
The plaintiff contended the defendant practiced below the standard of care by not immediately referring to an endodontist when the plaintiff had continuing pain to tooth number 6; by doing unnecessary apical surgery to tooth number 6 without investigating tooth number 7 as the continued source of pain; and by improperly making the apical incision above tooth number 6, causing damage to the infraorbital nerve.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Dr. Thomas Burriss contended his treatment of tooth number 6 was within the standard of care, including the subsequent incision and drainage procedure. The plaintiff's atypical facial pain did not result from the apical procedure as evidenced by Dr. Graff-Radford's examination on July 21, 2005. The plaintiff's pain was not anatomical in nature and was not within the distribution of the infraorbital nerve or any nerve.

Settlement Discussions

The plaintiff filed a C.C.P. Section 998 offer to compromise in the amount of $1.5 million. This demand was reduced to $900,000 on the first day of trial. The defendant offered $9,999.

Specials in Evidence

$35,000; $60,000; unspecified. $350,000;

Injuries

The plaintiff claimed unrelenting, excruciating pain to the right side of her face, forehead, lips, mouth, tongue, neck and shoulder.

Result

Defense verdict.

Deliberation

2.5 hours

Poll

11-1

Length

eight days