Amita Kadakia and Bulbul Kadakia v. Marlon Smith, D.D.S., et al.
Published: Nov. 15, 1997 | Result Date: Jul. 1, 1997 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: 545074 – $0
Judge
Court
Sacramento Superior
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Roger A. Dreyer
(Dreyer, Babich, Buccola, Wood & Campora LLP)
Defendant
Robert B. Zaro
(Zaro & Sillis)
Experts
Plaintiff
Richard Cohan
(medical)
Carol R. Hyland M.A.
(medical)
Emanuel Kanal
(medical)
Dale D. Pletcher
(medical)
Defendant
Frank G. Shellock
(medical)
Michael Gallisdorfer
(technical)
Robert A. Burton
(medical)
Michael Quessenberry
(medical)
Jerald H. Udinsky
(technical)
Louis Y. Cheng
(technical)
Garrison Kost
(technical)
Janak Mehtani
(medical)
Robert Caligiuri
(technical)
David Fialhlo
(technical)
Gregory W. Sells
(technical)
Facts
In August 1991, defendant Marlon Smith, D.D.S., general surgeon, extracted tooth number 17 (lower left third molar - "wisdom tooth") of plaintiff Amita Kadakia, a 36-year-old licensed vocational nurse. In April 1993, plaintiff was involved in a minor automobile accident with a defendant Gannon Trucking vehicle, driven by defendant James Loper, and subsequently developed a chronic pain and myofacial disorder. During the course of a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) examination in April 1994, the plaintiff experienced pain in her lower left jaw area. A plain panorex x-ray revealed a small (.15 inches by .05 inches) object imbedded in her mandible in the former site of tooth number 17. The object was removed by an oral surgeon (not a party to this action) three days later. Following the removal, plaintiff complained of continuing pain in the distribution of the third branch of her left trigeminal nerve. Subsequent radiofrequency lesioning and sub-occipital craniotomy sectioning of the left trigeminal nerve resulted in escalation of the plaintiff's complaints of facial pain. The plaintiffs, husband and wife, brought a timely complaint against Dr. Smith, claiming breach of his duty of care in failing to perceive that a dental extraction tool had compromised during removal of her tooth in 1991. The plaintiff husband alleged loss of consortium. The plaintiffs maintained that the fragment was the distal portion of a dental instrument and that this fragment had inflicted injury to the plaintiff's mandibular nerve as a result of an interaction with the field produced by the MRI magnets. The plaintiffs requested consolidation of their dental malpractice and automobile negligence actions.
Settlement Discussions
The plaintiffs made a settlement demand for $2.5 million against all defendants. Defendant Dr. Smith made an offer of $100,000 (policy limits).
Specials in Evidence
$70,000 plus
Damages
The plaintiff alleged damages against Dr. Smith and Gannon Trucking arising from the cost of surgical removal of the fragment of metal and all subsequent neurological treatment for her continuing and escalating complaints of facial pain. The plaintiff claimed lost wages and permanent disability due to her persistent pain. The plaintiff husband alleged damages for loss of consortium in both complaints.
Other Information
The verdict was reached approximately two years and six months after the case was filed. A settlement conference was held on Dec. 12, 1996, before Bruce Edwards of JAMS. It did not resolve the matter. The former employer of Dr. Smith, Charles Dental Group, was originally brought in as a "Doe" defendant by plaintiffs in the action against Dr. Smith. The Group was dismissed following summary judgment based on the expiration of the statute of limitations. EXPERT TESTIMONY: Defendant's expert Dr. Robert Burton, a neurologist, described plaintiff as suffering from a pre-existing chronic pain condition at the time of the 1994 MRI. Further, that she was asymptomatic during the intervening period from Dr. Smith's treatment in 1991 until the automobile accident in 1993, and that the automobile accident caused her "atypical facial pain" and related myofacial pain condition to be expressed. Plaintiffs' experts in MRI magnetism were unable to establish a causal nexus between the magnet, the fragment and plaintiff's injury. In addition, defendant's expert testified persuasively that Dr. Smith's failure to realize that a tiny fragment of metal had broken from the end of a dental instrument was not a dereliction of the duty of care and that there existed no further duty to perform x-ray examination of the socket following the extraction.
Deliberation
_______ hours
Poll
________ (# PLS.)
Length
12 days
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390