. .

Search Results

$________ - DENTAL MALPRACTICE - NEGLIGENT PERFORMANCE OF ROOT CANAL AND ENDODONTIC TREATMENT - FAILURE TO TREAT PERIODONTAL DISEASE - PLAINTIFF SUFFERS LOSS OF THREE TEETH REQUIRING FOUR TO FIVE UNIT BRIDGE.

New York County (25993)

This action was brought by a female plaintiff in her early 40’s who contended that the defendant dentist failed to properly treat periodontal disease and had negligently perforated the roots at tooth number 14 and tooth number 19. The plaintiff also contended that the defendant was negligent in using tooth number 15 as a bridge abutment in the presence of periodontal disease. The plaintiff contended that she lost all three teeth and now requires a four to five unit bridge. The plaintiff asserted that she treated with the defendant between September 22, ________ and July 19, ________ and had initially sought treatment for tooth number 14. The plaintiff maintained that the defendant perforated the root during root canal treatment to this tooth and had also perforated the root to tooth number 19 during endodontic treatment. The plaintiff’s expert prosthodontist testified that the defendant deviated from accepted standards in the rendering of root canal treatment and in failing to first treat tooth number 15 periodontically prior to utilizing it as an abutment.

The plaintiff’s subsequent treating dentists confirmed the testimony of the expert. The defendant asserted that he was not treating the plaintiff for periodontal disease and had intended to refer her for such treatment. The defendant further asserted that he did a cleaning and scaling. The defendant also argued that his treatment did not cause the periodontal disease and that the condition did not progress during the period that the plaintiff was under his care. The defendant contended that the condition of tooth number 14 was hopeless and that he did not contribute to its loss. The defendant also contended that he did not perforate the root at tooth number 19 and that the plaintiff did not have a poor prognosis at tooth number 15 and that he properly used it as an abutment. The defendant did not present an expert witness. The jury found for the plaintiff and awarded $________ in damages. The Court reduced the verdict to $________ on grounds that future dental costs were too speculative. The parties settled for $________ subsequent to the verdict. Sorkin vs.

Chayevsky. Index no. ________-89; Judge Gammerman, 6-25-90. Attorney for plaintiff: Robert S. Michael in Manhattan; Attorney for defendant: Frank Nervo in Manhattan. Plaintiff’s expert prosthodontist: Dr. William Kay of Huntington. Plaintiff’s subsequent treating dentists: Dr. Matthew Neary and Dr. Michael Goldberg, both in Manhattan.