Donald Edwards v. Bruce A. Pence, Jr. D.D.S.
Published: Jul. 12, 1997 | Result Date: Jun. 9, 1997 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: CIV163249 Verdict – $11,515
Judge
Court
Ventura Superior
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Defendant
Benjamin J. Engle
(Engle, Carobini & Coats LLP)
Experts
Plaintiff
Michael Bower
(medical)
Defendant
Michael Cobin
(medical)
Facts
Plaintiff, Donald Edwards, a 52-year-old equipment store manager, had a cracked lower dental plate. In 1965, the plaintiff had lost 30 of his 32 teeth in a motorcycle accident and had only the bottom left and right wisdom teeth remaining. These two teeth served as the anchors or posts to which his lower dental plate was clasped. On Jan. 25, 1995, the plaintiff saw the defendant dentist for the first time for the repair of his lower denture plate. The defendant examined the plaintiff and noted a cavity on his left wisdom tooth (No. 17) and recommended a root canal, a new crown and new dentures. The plaintiff consented agreed to this process. The plaintiff claimed that no time during this first visit did the defendant dentist opine the possibility that the tooth would need to be extracted. On March 1, 1995, the defendant began the root canal process but did not complete it. The plaintiff returned to the dentist on March 8, 1995. After the root canal process began, the defendant extracted tooth No. 17, telling the plaintiff that it could not be saved. The plaintiff subsequently discovered that he is not a candidate for dental implants. The plaintiff was left with a lower denture that is no longer secure and is subject to constant lateral movement. The plaintiff brought this action against the defendant based on a negligence theory of recovery.
Settlement Discussions
The plaintiff made a settlement demand for $45,000. The defendant made no settlement offers.
Damages
The plaintiff asked the jury for damages between $60,000 to $75,000.
Injuries
The plaintiff alleged increased difficulty in speaking and eating due to the lateral slippage of his lower dental plate.
Other Information
The verdict was reached approximately one year and two months after the case was filed. A settlement conference was held on Jan. 21, 1997 before Judge Robert C. Bradley of Ventura Superior Court. It did not resolve the matter. EXPERT TESTIMONY: The plaintiff's expert testified that he had seen teeth similar to the plaintiff that were successfully restored when referred to a specialist such as an endodontist. The defendant's expert testified that the decision to refer is necessarily based on the general dentist's initial and final judgment call as to whether the tooth is restorable. If it is restorable, or if there is any chance of restorability, a referral should be made. The defense expert admitted that he sees three to four teeth such as the plaintiff's per month and that they are restorable if there is not severe tooth decay, and testified that the tooth decay was such that, based on the x-ray, the tooth was not restorable. The defense expert agreed that the defendant was in the best position to observe the extent of the decay, but was unaware that the previous day the defendant had testified that the decay to the tooth was not insurmountable and that the tooth was restorable from a decay standpoint. As a result, the defense expert ultimately conceded that the defendant had fallen below the standard of care in failing to make the referral.
Deliberation
1 day
Poll
9-3
Length
3 days
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390