Rolando Trujillo Jr. v. Burton H. Smith, M.D.
Published: Feb. 19, 2000 | Result Date: Nov. 29, 1999 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: 787344 Verdict – $0
Judge
Court
Orange Superior
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Defendant
Robert C. Reback
(Reback, McAndrews & Blessey LLP)
Experts
Plaintiff
Farshid Sam Rahbar
(medical)
Defendant
Carl I. Blau
(medical)
Facts
On Aug. 31, 1996, the plaintiff was transported by ambulance to Los Alamitos Medical Center with complaints of vomiting blood, nausea, dizziness and bloody stools for the past two days following the ingestion of mushrooms. Upon admission, the plaintiff's hematocrit and hemoglobin were both low. After transfusion of two units of packed red blood cells, the plaintiff's blood counts were still low. He reported a similar prior incident a few years back, for which he underwent upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, which did not result in a diagnosis. He was admitted to the ICU in critical condition. Dr. Burton Smith then provided a gastroenterology consultation. Dr. Smith's impression was probable upper gastrointestinal bleed. His plan was to perform an upper gastrointestinal endoscopy to determine the source of the bleed. The hospital's GI laboratory was closed due to the Labor Day holiday, so the endoscopy was performed at the patient's bedside. Prior to the procedure, the plaintiff alleged that he protested to the endoscopy being performed at his bedside, and also complained about the lack of a videoscope. Nonetheless, informed consent for the procedure was obtained. The endoscopy was performed by way of conscious sedation. The procedure was completed successfully, and diagnosis made. However, at the end of the procedure, it was discovered that pieces of plaintiff's dental appliances had been damaged. Following the procedure, the plaintiff informed a nurse that his teeth had been loose recently. Thereafter, that same nurse discovered a tube of dental cement by the plaintiff's bedside, which the plaintiff stated he had been using to secure his teeth. A dental consultation ordered by Dr. Smith revealed that two veneers and a porcelain crown on his upper incisors had come off, and a porcelain crown on another upper incisor had been damaged. No damage to the plaintiff's dentition was found. No dental treatment was rendered, but the patient was advised to seek restorative treatment following his discharge. The plaintiff did not seek any type of dental treatment until December 1998, when he had temporary caps and veneers placed on the subject teeth. By the time of trial, the plaintiff still had not had permanent appliances placed.
Settlement Discussions
The plaintiff demanded $438,000. The defendant offered a waiver of costs.
Specials in Evidence
$2,670 $600,750 $6,135
Injuries
Damage to two dental veneers and two porcelain crowns on the upper incisors. The plaintiff contended that he was unable to seek repair of his dental appliances for over two years because of his fear of dentists. Furthermore, because of the aesthetics of his damaged dental work and the associated emotional distress he suffered, he claimed he was unable to work for over two years, and was forced to shut down his venture capital and management consulting concern.
Other Information
Defendant's motion for summary adjudication of plaintiff's battery cause of action was granted on July 22, 1999.
Deliberation
28 minutes
Poll
12-0
Length
five days
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390