Facts

Plaintiff Jacqueline Shirley presented to Thomas Varin D.D.S. for a dental cleaning. Varin performed a deep cleaning/root planning on Shirley using a Piezo ultrasonic scaling unit. Shirley's right, lower lip was subsequently burned. She then claimed that this burn caused additional problems not limited to numbness and speech problems. She sued Varin for dental malpractice.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiff contended that defendant used Septocaine, a local anesthetic, instead of the widely local anesthetic, Lidocaine. She further contended that the use of Septocaine fell below the standard of care due to the controversy noted in the studies. She also contended that defendant was negligent in the use of the ultrasonic scaling unit in causing the burn and in failing to prevent a burn. Shirley's expert testified that there is no peer reviewed literature or piezo scaler manufacturer warning that a lip burn is an inherent risk associated with the piezo scaler for teeth scaling and studies show that the use of 4 percent Septocaine resulted in a higher incidence of paresthesia, or a "pins and needles" sensation, when used in block anesthesia compared to the standard 2 percent local anesthesia block with Lidocaine. Counsel argued that circumstantially since Shirley's tongue was numb post-operatively, Varin likely used the more toxic Septocaine block injection, rather than using Lidocaine infiltration, contrary to Varin's records that defendant only infiltrated with local anesthesia and not block anesthesia.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Defendant contended that only plaintiff's lower lip corner was burned, and that none of her gums were injured so the tip of the scaling unit could not have overheated. Varin's expert testified that prior studies linking Septocaine block injections to paresthesia had been statistically inadequate, and that Shirley was given only infiltration anesthesia and not block anesthesia. The expert further testified that the burn was an accident when the shank of the ultrasonic scaling unit inadvertently touched Shirley's lip corner, causing the burn.

Damages

Shirley, who was finishing treatment for breast cancer, claimed that prior to the incident, her life was improving, despite the fact that she had breast cancer. She was out of work and was under severe financial distress after losing her house from medical expenses and not working. Despite all her issues, Shirley claimed she had a positive outlook, but that the subject dental incident was "the straw that broke the camel's back" and ruined her life for returning to work. However, Plaintiff did not claim or argue any wage loss or loss of earning capacity.

Injuries

Shirley sustained a burn to her right lower lip corner and claimed that the burn caused numbness on all of the right side of her mouth. As a result, she suffered from drooling, inability to eat on the right side of her mouth, speech problems, problems swallowing, and lack of taste on the right side of her tongue. She had diminished sensation in her lower lip and chin, below the area of the burn. A periodontist referred her to an oral surgeon, who subsequently diagnosed her with injuries to two of the three branches of the trigeminal nerve, the fifth cranial nerve responsible for sensation in the face during biting and chewing. Shirley also had problems with choking, swallowing and excessive saliva. An otolaryngologist opined that Shirley had mild oropharyngeal dysphagia and mild pharyngeal dysphagia, with retained food bolus on the affected side. A speech pathologist later found that Shirley had mild speech problems. Varin's experts opined that there was no medical anatomical basis for many of Shirley's complaints, and that her persistent lip and tongue numbness were not related to the incident. Also the lip burn was superficial and healed with no current evidence of a residual scar.

Result

The jury returned a defense verdict and found that Varin was not negligent in the treatment of Shirley.

Poll

11-1

Length

seven days