Michael Kiss v. Phillip Latham, D.D.S.
Published: Jan. 30, 1999 | Result Date: Sep. 29, 1998 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: 95AS01091 – $0
Judge
Court
Sacramento Superior
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Defendant
Mark Ewell Ellis
(Ellis Law Group LLP)
Experts
Plaintiff
Donald Missirlian
(medical)
Defendant
Jeffrey D. Light
(medical)
Jeffrey Norlander
(medical)
Facts
Plaintiff Michael Kiss, a 34-year-old window shading tinter, had settled an earlier dental negligence lawsuit (against another dentist) for a defective four unit anterior bridge. Thereafter, plaintiff sought corrective treatment with prosthodontist Donald Missirlian, D.D.S., who treatment planned a six-unit upper anterior fixed bridge with support posts in each crown to accommodate the six-unit design and to reduce occlusal forces since plaintiff was a heavy biter. After Dr. Missirlian prepared plaintiff's teeth and placed a six-unit temporary bridge, plaintiff transferred to the defendant dentist in the present action, a managed care provider with lower fees than Dr. Missirlian's. The defendant ignored Dr. Missirlian's plan design and, instead, placed a three-unit upper anterior bridge and three adjacent unsplinted single crowns, which was easier for defendant to do but contraindicated for plaintiff. Additionally, defendant placed two other lower posterior crowns. The plaintiff brought this action against the defendant based on negligence and lack of informed consent theories of recovery.
Settlement Discussions
The plaintiff made a C.C.P. º998 settlement demand for $22,500. The defendant made an offer of $10,000, later raised to $16,000.
Damages
The plaintiff claimed damages of approximately $12,000 to redo crowns, posts, endodontics, and for crown lengthening surgery necessitated by decay from defendant's defective open margins.
Injuries
The plaintiff claimed that the procedure left him with a loose bridge and defective crowns. The plaintiff also claimed he would have to undergo remaking eight units of crown and bridge and periodontal crown lengthening surgery.
Other Information
The verdict was reached approximately three years and six months after the case was filed. A 5-day court-ordered arbitration was held before Claire H. Greve of Greve, Clifford, Wengel and Paras resulting in a defense award. The plaintiff requested a trial de novo. The plaintiff claims costs including expert witness expenses and prejudgment interest of $28,000, for a total of $64,000. The defendant's motion to tax costs to be heard November 19, 1998.
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390