Thomas Gottlieb v. Steri Oss Inc., et al.
Published: Jul. 15, 2000 | Result Date: Jun. 13, 2000 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: 83869 Verdict – $0
Judge
Court
Riverside Superior
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Lee C. Arter
(Law Offices of Lee Arter)
Defendant
Experts
Defendant
Larry J. Moore
(medical)
Facts
Doctor A referred plaintiff to Dr. Sternlieb for evaluation for the placement of dental implants. On April 23, 1991,
the plaintiff was seen by Dr. Sternlieb for a consultation. On May 2, two implants were surgically placed side-
by-side in plaintiffÆs upper jaw, replacing molars.
These implants as well as the abutments installed by doctor A were manufactured by defendant Steri-Oss Inc.
Prior to the implant surgery, plaintiff signed a consent form in which he acknowledged that he understood "in
some instances implants fail and must be removed."
The same consent form also provided that "no guarantees or assurance as to the outcome of results of treatment
or surgery can be made." Plaintiff stated during his deposition that he was informed by Dr. Sternlieb, prior to
the surgery, that the implants could fail as a result of disease or rejection.
PlaintiffÆs healing process was within normal limits and during a follow-up on November 1991, Dr. Sternlieb
noted the implants appeared to have integrated into plaintiffÆs jaw. He thus proceeded with the placement of
"healing collars," installed to ensure the gum tissue does not again grow over the implants.
On November 25, doctor A inserted the permanent abutments (false teeth) on the implants in order to take an
impression of the area. This impression was then used to construct plaintiffÆs prosthesis, a fused two-tooth
bridge.
The final prosthesis, including the permanent abutments and the crown, was placed by doctor A on Jan. 27,
1992. On August 3, plaintiff returned to doctor A complaining of looseness in the bridge. Doctor A partially
tightened the bridge, but then sent plaintiff Dr. Sternlieb.
Dr. Sternlieb was unable to remove plaintiffÆs abutments, however, as he did not own the tool required to
unscrew the abutments installed by doctor A. Dr. Sternlieb therefore had to borrow the tool from doctor A.
A year later, plaintiff returned to Dr. Sternlieb complaining that the bridge was again loose. Dr. Sternlieb
tightened the bridge and noted a slight mobility in one of the implants. Plaintiff returned for a one month
follow-up at which time Dr. Sternlieb found the bridge was tight.
Plaintiff next returned to Dr. Sternlieb on Aug. 1, 1994, complaining that the bridge had become loose again.
Dr. Sternlieb noted the implants were slightly mobile and that plaintiff had occasional tenderness when biting.
X-rays were taken and indicated that the implants appeared firmly integrated and demonstrated no sign of bone
loss around them. Within the next three weeks, plaintiffÆs implant fractured.
Plaintiff testified that the fracture occurred while he was asleep, and that it was unaccompanied by any pain.
He further indicated that the fracture occurred without any warning signs. Dr. Sternlieb advised plaintiff that
the implants would likely have to be removed.
Plaintiff then consulted other oral surgeons for second and third opinions and both doctors advised that the
fractured implants would have to be removed so that new implants could be installed.
Plaintiff obtained a fourth opinion informed plaintiff that another implant surgery was not necessary and
discussed non-implant alternatives a permanent bridge was an option, though he predicted it would fail within
5-8 years because it could not be adequately anchored to the plaintiffÆs wisdom tooth.
Plaintiff nonetheless elected to have the permanent bridge installed. The remaining portions of the fractured
implants were left in plaintiffÆs jaw, concealed by new gum tissue.
The plaintiff contended that Dr. Steinlieb negligently affixed the dental implants causing them to break.
Plaintiff filed a complaint against the defendants based on strict products liability, negligence, breach of
implied warranty and general negligence.
Doctor A was dismissed on motion for summary judgment, based on the applicable statute of limitations.
Settlement Discussions
The plaintiff demanded $99,999. The defendant made no offer.
Other Information
<E>PlaintiffÆs expert, Gary Wulschlager, D.D.S., opined that the bridge attached to the top of the implants was "too long" in comparison to the length of the implant imbedded in plaintiffÆs jaw (an improper crown-to-root ratio). He further opined that Dr. Sternlieb should have noticed that the abutments placed by doctor A were not the same size as the implants into which they were screwed. Finally, he stated that Dr. Sternlieb should have used wider (as opposed to longer) implants. Larry Moore, an oral surgeon, opined that the standard of care does not require Dr. Sternlieb to have noticed that doctor A installed mismatching abutments. First, it is impossible for Dr. Sternlieb to have visualized the mismatch while providing treatment to plaintiff, as the area where the mismatch can be seen is hidden by gum tissue. Further, the X-rays reviewed by Dr. Sternlieb did not clearly reveal the mismatch. No party or expert in this action noticed the mismatch in plaintiffÆs X-rays until after Steri OssÆ experts prepared enlargement.</E>
Length
eight days
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390