Invest in your success.
JVRA helps lawyers win cases by providing critical information you can use to establish precedent, determine demand and win arguments.
ARTICLE ID 25993
$________ - 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
This action was brought by a female plaintiff in her early 40s
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 plaintiffs 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 plaintiffs 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. Plaintiffs expert
prosthodontist: Dr. William Kay of Huntington. Plaintiffs
subsequent treating dentists: Dr. Matthew Neary and Dr. Michael
Goldberg, both in Manhattan.
5 ways to win with JVRA
JVRA gives you jurisdiction-specific, year-round insight into the strategies, arguments and tactics that win. Successful attorneys come to the table prepared and use JVRA to:
- Determine if a case is winnable and recovery amounts.
- Determine reasonable demand for a case early on.
- Support a settlement demand by establishing precedent.
- Research trial strategies, tactics and arguments.
- Defeat or support post-trial motions through past case histories.
Try JVRA for a day or a month, or sign up for our deluxe Litigation Support Plan and put the intelligence of JVRA to work for all of your clients. See our subscription plans.