Maria Patricia Rodiles v. Marcus Doyle
Published: Nov. 16, 2000 | Result Date: May 21, 2000 |Case number: C9900692 Verdict – $250,000
Judge
Court
Contra Costa Superior
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Defendant
Facts
The plaintiff, a 25-year-old receptionist in a medical office, claimed that the defendant negligently extracted a
lower third molar, damaging the lingual nerve, causing numbness to half of the tongue and loss of taste. The
plaintiff also claimed failure to schedule follow-up appointments and failure to refer to a microsurgeon to
evaluate surgical repair options.
The defendant denied that he negligently extracted the tooth and that this injury occurred as a result of non-
negligent stretching or scar tissue formation. The defendant contended that the plaintiff prevented referral by
failing to return to him as requested for further evaluation.
Settlement Discussions
The plaintiff demanded $150,000, increased to $195,000 at mediation. The defendant made a C.C.P. Section 998 offer for $105,000.
Damages
$750,000 (past and future general damages)
Other Information
<E>The plaintiffÆs expert, Robert Staley, testified that complete numbness of half of the tongue could only occur due to negligent severing of the lingual nerve during extraction of a third molar. He also testified that referral to a microsurgeon was required only at the post-extraction appointment, due to plaintiffÆs claim of complete numbness. The plaintiffÆs expert, Richard Nathan, testified that the lingual nerve should not be at risk of injury in a third molar extraction. Defense expert Roger Meyer testified that due to the delayed onset of numbness and the procedure used to extract a tooth by the defendant, the injury to the lingual nerve case was caused by scar tissue formation following the extraction or stretching of the nerve during extraction. He also testified that immediate referral for microsurgery was not required as the plaintiff had some sensation at the post-surgery appointment. Defense expert Daniel Orr testified that damage to the lingual nerve was a known risk of lower third molar extraction and that the defendantÆs method of extraction of the tooth met the standard of care.</E>
Deliberation
two days
Poll
10-2 (negligence and causation), 9-3 (damages and comparative negligence)
Length
nine days
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390