DENTAL MALPRACTICE – REPRESENTATIVE CASES
Defense Verdict – Ill Fitting and Bulky Crowns and Bridges
New York Supreme Court, New York County
Defendant's verdict in a case where the plaintiff claimed that the crowns and bridges were unnecessary, ill fitting and bulky with open margins. We presented evidence that a subsequent dentist permanently cemented our insureds' crowns and bridge into place, demonstrating they fit. Our expert testified the affected teeth had sealed margins, except for one due to plaintiff's grinding, smoking, and poor oral hygiene. We argued the alleged "bulkiness" was subjective and, could have been corrected by 30 seconds of grinding.
Defense Verdict – Bulky, Ill Fitting Bridges, Negligent Periodontal Care
New York Supreme Court, Nassau County
Defendant's verdict in a case where plaintiff claimed that the bridges she received were bulky and ill fitting and required repeated and unnecessary re-insertion. She alleged inadequate periodontal evaluation and treatment which caused her severe pain, pinching, periodontal disease, infections, continuous bleeding, embarrassment from bridges falling out in public, inability to eat anything but soft food, potential future loss of teeth, years of subsequent treatment and new bridgework with questionable prognosis.
We presented expert testimony that the bridges were properly fitted. We challenged proximate cause with evidence that the crowns and bridges were loosened by the patient's bruxism (grinding and clenching habit). Proper evaluation and treatment was demonstrated by perio charting, a perio consult by a board certified periodontist, scaling, root planing, debridement, "rotary gingevectomies" during prep, and prescribing of Periostat. With regard to the claim that the bridges would fall out, we argued that the decision on the type of cement used was based on the need for further adjustment. We also presented evidence of the plaintiff's culpable conduct in the form of poor oral hygiene and her abandonment of treatment for 1 3/4 years. Evidence was also presented of her pre-existing dental conditions, missing teeth, and bone loss.
Defense Verdict – Lack of Informed Consent; TMJ, PTSS
New York Supreme Court, New York County
Defense verdict in case where plaintiff claimed lack of informed consent regarding full upper and lower arch splint dental bridges leading to plaintiff's teeth being reduced to "stubs", TMJ, and post-traumatic stress syndrome. We presented evidence that the subsequent dentist re-prepped the teeth so they could not have been "stubs". We also had plaintiff's own psychologist to testify that he had described himself as a "con man" and a "whiner".
Defense Verdict – Inadequate Support for Bridges, Poor Fit
New York Supreme Court, Kings County
Defense verdict where plaintiff claimed she was fitted with bridges despite being told they would be implants. She claimed inadequate support for dental bridges, and poor fit. We presented evidence that defendant properly made and inserted all restorations.
Defense Verdict – Permanent Paresthesia 50% of Body Due to Anesthesia
New York Supreme Court, New York County
Defense verdict where plaintiff claimed permanent paresthesia over half her body after defendant dentist's administration of anesthesia. We presented evidence that plaintiff suffered from hysteria, and her claims were anatomically impossible based on the subject enervation path of the affected nerve.
Summary Judgment – Ill Fitting Implants and Restorations; TMJ; Bone Loss, etc.
New York Supreme Court, New York County
Summary judgment dismissing the complaint where plaintiff alleged that our client negligently installed implants and provided restorations that were ill-fitting and failed to refer plaintiff to specialists, causing bone loss, periodontium destruction, temporomandibular joint (TMJ) syndrome, neuromuscular disturbance, loss of tooth structure, sensitivity, loss of future teeth, as well as anguish and loss of ability to chew properly and to engage in social activity. We moved for an order of summary judgment arguing that the claims were barred by the Statute of Limitations since they accrued more than 2 years prior to the filing of the lawsuit. Plaintiff claimed that the statute of limitations was tolled as a result of the continuous treatment doctrine.