Facts

Plaintiff Peter Pableo, now age 29, visited the dental office of defendant Roya Yahgoubian in April 2003 for a cleaning and check up. X-rays were taken, which revealed decay under existing composite fillings on teeth numbers 14 and 15. The defendant suggested removing the decay and preparing both teeth for onlays, restorations that are much less destructive than full crowns. The plaintiff agreed and signed a written, informed consent indicating that during preparation of the onlays, sensitivity and injury to the nerve of the tooth could occur which may necessitate further treatment including RCT (root canal therapy). The plaintiff returned on May 1, at which time both teeth were prepared for the onlays. He returned on May 16, complaining of pain and sensitivity. The defendant removed the temporary onlays and placed a sedative material and informed plaintiff that he may need root canals but they should wait to see if the sensitivity subsided. The plaintiff returned on May 27, at which time he was referred to endodontist Amir Fesharaki. He returned again the following day after having seen Dr. Fesharaki. The defendant then made a referral to the USC Dental School's Endodontic Dept., where he could receive treatment for about half the cost. He did not return for further treatment.

On May 30, Dr. Fesharaki performed RCT on number 14. In January 2004, H. Brillantes Daulo, D.D.S., performed RCT on number 15 and later placed crowns on both teeth.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
The plaintiff contended that under the standard of care, defendant was required to immediately perform RCT on May 16 or immediately refer plaintiff to a specialist.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
The defendant contended that the standard of care did not require immediate RCT on May 16. The defendant appropriately suggested waiting a few days to see if the symptoms died down on his or her own. Even the endodontist, Dr. Fesharaki, did not immediately perform RCT when he saw plaintiff on May 28 and waited until May 30 to do so.

Settlement Discussions

There was a demand for $50,000, and no offer.

Damages

The plaintiff experienced pain for several weeks until the RCT was completed.

Result

The verdict was for the defense.

Other Information

The case was initially tried in December 2005, but a mistrial was declared due to the fact that plaintiff's expert witness had to suddenly leave the country because of a family emergency and was unable to testify.

Deliberation

1.5 hours

Length

3.5 days