Facts

On Nov. 11, 2004, the mother of Elina Vue, 15, took her to treat with Dr. Su Nhia Ying Vang, a dentist. Over the course of the next 16 months, Vang took x-rays and treated other problems with Vue's teeth, including cavities and a root canal.

Vue lost the lower left half of her jaw due to a non-cancerous tumor, odontogenic myxoma, that plaintiff claimed had grown over the course of the 16 months of treatment by Vang.

Vue sued Vang for failing to timely diagnose the abnormality and refer her to a specialist.

PRE-TRIAL: The same attorneys previously tried this case in December 2010, which resulted in a hung jury (8-4 in favor of plaintiff).

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiff contended that Vang took a set of 18 PA x-rays which revealed an "abnormal shadow" behind her lower left second molar that went off the edge of the x-ray. Plaintiff contended that in the 14 subsequent visits to Vang, he took seven sets of x-rays.

On Feb. 21, 2005, Vang finished a root canal on Vue. Two days later, on Feb. 23, Vue returned with pain to the tooth he had completed the root canal on and the tooth next to it. Vang took an x-ray and noted an abnormal shadow at tooth #18's distal root tip (distal apex radiolucency) However, Vang failed to perform any further diagnostic tests or exams to reach a diagnosis, but rather prescribed antibiotics and pain killers and set no further appointment. Vang installed the crown on tooth #18 on June 7, 2005, noted it had +2 mobility and that the shadow size increased. He prescribed antibiotics again and claims he set a follow-up appointment for July 5, 2005. Vue did not show for this appointment, but claims it was never made. On Dec. 28, 2005, tooth #18 fell out. Vang extracted tooth #19 a week later. By the time the tumor was properly diagnosed in April, the entire lower left half of her jaw had to be removed and replaced by a metal prosthesis, resulting in pain and facial disfigurement.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Vang contended that he had treated Vue properly. Defendant argued that the tumor was rare in the plaintiff's age group (15), was symptomless and that the treatment provided focused on completing root canal therapy and a crown on a nearby tooth. The tumor is only treated with surgical removal. Defendant claimed the slow growing tumor was present in plaintiff for at least 5 years before 2004, and that the surgery to remove it would have been the same regardless of when the diagnosis was made. Finally, the plaintiff's mother delayed diagnosis and treatment for 6 months from the time Vang first referred plaintiff to an oral surgeon for biopsy.

Settlement Discussions

Pre-trial, plaintiff made a CCP 998 offer of $104,999.99. Defendant made no offer.

Result

The jury found that Vang was negligent, but concluded that he was only 50 percent responsible for Vue's pain and suffering. The jury found that Vue's mother was 30 percent liable, and the first oral surgeon was 20 percent liable. The jury awarded Vue $500,000 as follows: $350,000 in lost future wages; $100,000 in future medical care; and $50,000 in pain and suffering. The award was reduced to $475,000 due to comparative fault. Plaintiff submitted a cost bill of $201,734.65 after the award exceeded their 998 offer of $104,999.99.