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
Dental Malpractice
Negligent Treatment/Lack of Informed Consent

Oral Steele, Vickie Steele v. Stephen D. Davis, D.D.S.

Published: Jul. 1, 2006 | Result Date: Feb. 21, 2006 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: SCV232892 Verdict –  Defense

Court

Sonoma Superior


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Douglas C. Fladseth
(Law Office Douglas Fladseth)


Defendant

Alan G. Harvey


Experts

Plaintiff

James S. Dower
(medical)

Linnea J. Westerberg
(medical)

Defendant

Stanley F. Malamed
(medical)

M. Anthony Pogrel
(medical)

Facts

In 2002, defendant Stephen Davis D.D.S. cemented a new crown for plaintiff Vickie Steele. During the procedure, Davis gave Steele, 54, a local anesthesia injection using Articaine. The day after the surgery, Steele experienced numbness in her tongue followed by a burning sensation. Steele was diagnosed with paresthesia. Steele filed a dental malpractice lawsuit against Davis. She also filed a lawsuit against the manufacturer of Articaine on a theory of products liability, however that lawsuit settled.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
The plaintiff contended that the defendant acted negligently when he administered anesthesia because anesthesia was not necessary prior to cementing a crown. The plaintiff also argued that the defendant improperly injected the anesthesia in soft tissue causing her to suffer from permanent nerve damage. The plaintiff contended that if anesthesia was necessary, Lidocaine would have been a safer alternative to Articaine. She also claimed that the defendant did not get her informed consent prior to administering anesthesia.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
The defendant contended that he administered an inferior alveolar block injection and Articaine was the proper anesthesia for the plaintiff's procedure because the plaintiff had a sensitive tooth. Defense experts opined that the occurrence of paresthesia is not necessarily an indication of negligence on the dentist's part and that even though it is a possible risk with Articaine injections, it is unlikely.

Settlement Discussions

The plaintiff demanded $50,000 and the defendant offered $9,999.

Damages

The plaintiff sought damages for pain and suffering in an unspecified amount. The plaintiff's husband sought damages for loss of consortium.

Injuries

The plaintiff's injuries consisted of pain and burning in her tongue.

Result

The jury returned a defense verdict. It determined that even though the defendant failed to obtain the plaintiff's informed consent, the defendant was not negligent because causation was lacking.

Deliberation

1.5 days

Poll

9-3

Length

nine days


#118974

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

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