Carol Riddle v. Ann C. Cotham, D.D.S.; Kenneth Hamada, D.D.S.
Published: Jun. 14, 1997 | Result Date: Jan. 23, 1997 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: 962096636 – $18,856
Judge
Court
King Superior
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Defendant
Experts
Plaintiff
Michael Cohen
(medical)
Robert Feasel
(medical)
Defendant
George Chatalas
(medical)
Darlene Chan
(medical)
Facts
From 1976 to 1994, plaintiff Carole Riddle obtained dental care from defendant Kenneth Hamada, D.D.S. On March 1, 1993, Dr. Hamada's associate and successor, defendant Ann C. Cotham, D.D.S., examined the plaintiff patient and advised her that tooth No. 8 (her central incisor) exhibited Class III mobility and would eventually be lost. She also advised the plaintiff patient that she needed a four-unit bridge over the area after tooth was removed. On April 5, 1993, the tooth was extracted and a four-unit bridge was seated over teeth No. 6 through No. 9 temporary sealant. Six months later, the bridge was seated with permanent sealant by Dr. Hamada. Prior to permanent seating, the plaintiff patient complained of throbbing or pulsating in the area above where the tooth was extracted. Dr. Cotham advised the plaintiff patient that it was part of the healing process. The plaintiff claimed the throbbing persisted but was somewhat tolerable for the remainder of the year. Dr. Hamada retired, and the plaintiff transferred care to another dentist, Robert Feasel, D.D.S. On Nov. 8, 1994, Dr. Feasel took x-rays and discovered that 9 mm of the root of tooth No. 8 was not extracted. Dr. Feasel noted inflammation in the gum above where No. 8 was located. Dr. Feasel referred the plaintiff to periodontist Michael Cohen, D.D.S., who removed the root through the buccal area of the gum above where tooth No. 8 was formerly located. The plaintiff underwent surgery in February 1995 and a follow-up procedure on April 1, 1995. The plaintiffs, the patient and her husband, brought this action against Dr. Cotham and Dr. Hamada based on negligence, failure to secure informed consent and loss of consortium theories of recovery.
Settlement Discussions
The plaintiff made a C.C.P. º998 settlement demand for $28,000. The defendants made no settlement offers.
Specials in Evidence
$1,595 $2,261 $3,000
Damages
The plaintiff husband claimed loss of consortium.
Injuries
The plaintiff patient claimed that she suffered permanent bone loss, a swollen lip and face and continued pain.
Other Information
An arbitration was held on Jan. 23, 1997 before John G. Bergmann resulting in the reported award.
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390