Debra Dornan v. Randall Hayashi, D.D.S.
Published: Nov. 15, 1997 | Result Date: Aug. 25, 1997 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: 85961 – $0
Judge
Court
Stanislaus Superior
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Defendant
Experts
Plaintiff
Joseph Schames
(medical)
Defendant
Michael Cadra
(medical)
Facts
On Feb. 21, 1995, plaintiff Debra Dornan, a 38-year-old unemployed housekeeper, had crowns placed on teeth numbers 30 and 31 (lower right molars) by defendant Dr. Randall Hayashi, D.D.S. The plaintiff alleged that during the preparation for crowns, while in a full flexed open position, she experienced a "pop" and severe pain located in her right temporomandibular joint (TMJ). The plaintiff also alleged that she told defendant of the pop and pain and his instructions to her were to "bear with it" because they were almost done with the procedure. The defendant denied knowledge of any incident on Feb. 21, 1995. Following the preparation of the crowns, the plaintiff contacted defendant's office complaining of discomfort. The defendant referred plaintiff to Drs. Erickson and Lee for an examination of her complaints of pain in the lower right portion of her mouth. The plaintiff did not provide a history to Dr. Erickson or Dr. Lee of the alleged incident of Feb. 21, 1995. Dr. Lee diagnosed a viral infection in and about the area of teeth numbers 30 and 31 and prescribed antibiotic treatment. After the treatment, plaintiff indicated to Dr. Lee that everything was fine. Dr. Lee gave his approval for the completion of the crowns. The defendant took impressions for a night guard on June 14, 1995, at which time he noted periapical abscesses with a viral infection of tooth 30. He referred plaintiff to Valley Hill Dental Group again, and Dr. Lee found a radiolucency on the distal right of tooth number 30. On June 21, 1995, Dr. Lee recommended root canal therapy, which was performed on tooth number 30 on July 11 and Aug. 8, 1995. On Jan. 21, 1996, the plaintiff once again presented to defendant with complaints of right TMJ pain. The defendant referred the plaintiff to Drs. Mantz and Baker, oral surgeons, for an evaluation. The plaintiff failed to present to Drs. Mantz and Baker and notified defendant of her intent to file suit against him a few days later. Ultimately, plaintiff presented to Dr. Murray Jacobs. As of Sept. 14, 1995, plaintiff was still experiencing pain on the right side and had TMJ problems which were again charted on Jan. 22, 1996. Dr. Jacobs, (oral surgeon) examined plaintiff on May 21, 1996, for TMJ pain and suspected three possible diagnoses for plaintiff's symptoms -- myofacial pain dysfunction of the masseter muscle greater on the right than the left, possible inflammation of the soft tissue secondary to her dental procedure by defendant and possible internal derangement of the right TMJ. Dr. Jacobs testified at deposition that the probable diagnosis was myofacial pain dysfunction of the masseter muscle, greater on the right than the left. He further testified that he had never treated a patient for this disorder after the patient received crown work. Dr. Jacobs prescribed conservative treatment, such as moist heat and massage, but plaintiff never followed his recommendations. Prior to the crown work prepared by defendant, plaintiff filed a workers' compensation action for carpal tunnel syndrome in her wrists and hands. (The plaintiff worked in the housekeeping department for Doctors Medical Center in Modesto at the time of the incident.) The workers' compensation records indicated that plaintiff was experiencing pain radiating to the right shoulder and right side of the neck. The plaintiff consulted a neurologist, Dr. Dhaliwal, for pain in her wrists, arms, shoulder and neck associated with her workers' compensation injury. The plaintiff also consulted with subsequent dental providers including Callin Lee, D.D.S., Gerald Erickson, D.D.S. and Jay Wani, M.D., her primary care physician. All of these health care providers testified at deposition that plaintiff never complained of TMJ pain to them, and their charts did not contain entries of TMJ pain. The plaintiff brought this action against defendant based on a dental malpractice theory of recovery.
Settlement Discussions
The plaintiff made a C.C.P. º998 settlement demand for $300,000. The defendant made no offer except a waiver of costs in exchange for dismissal. No consent from Dr. Hayashi was given.
Specials in Evidence
$3,077.38 $40,000 to $60,000
Other Information
The verdict was reached approximately one year and four months after the case was filed. Two settlement conferences were held on March 4, 1997 and August 12, 1997 before Hon. John E. Griffin of the Stanislaus County Superior Court. It did not resolve the matter. Early this year, this matter went to trial but was continued as a result of plaintiff's expert Mayer Schames' undertaking significant additional investigation pertaining to his opinions following the completion of his expert deposition. The court ordered Dr. Schames to appear for a second deposition and be prepared to provide any and all expert opinions as a result of his analysis of the case including an interpretation of the plaintiff's need for surgery following a completion of an MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) On June 17, 1997, a second session of Dr. Schames' deposition was taken in anticipation of the August 1997 trial date. At the June 17, 1997 deposition, Dr. Schames, testified that he had not conducted any additional investigation nor formed any opinions beyond those expressed in his first deposition. When specifically asked whether or not the plaintiff was a surgical candidate, Dr. Schames stated that without additional information concerning the status of the plaintiff, he could not render an opinion with a reasonable medical probability concerning the need for surgery in this case. Dr. Schames failed to tell counsel that he had scheduled an examination of the plaintiff the day following his second deposition. At the time of trial, the plaintiff's counsel sought to have Dr. Schames render an opinion that the plaintiff would ultimately be a surgical candidate based upon his examination of the plaintiff on June 18, 1997. The court refused to allow Dr. Schames to express such an opinion based on the failure Dr. Schames and/or plaintiff's counsel to notify the defense that Dr. Schames re-examined plaintiff the day after his second deposition. Dr. Schames was prevented from testifying at trial that he believed plaintiff would need surgery in the future.
Deliberation
45 minutes
Poll
not taken
Length
11 days
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390