The plaintiff, a forty-year old part-time nursing student and housewife was examined by the defendant’s associate who told her that she needed many of her teeth capped but that she first had to have periodontal treatment. At the next visit, the plaintiff was seen by the defendant who started to prepare her teeth to be capped and told her that her periodontal condition wasn’t so bad. During treatment the patient requested that the defendant cap all of her teeth for aesthetic considerations and he complied. A few months after all of the crowns and bridges were cemented the patient visited a new dentist for routine cleaning and was told to run, not walk, to the nearest periodontist. Upon examination by the periodontist, the patient learned that she needed four quadrants of periodontal surgery which she promptly had performed. Following the surgery, the gingival margin occupied a healthier position which was now 1-3 millimeters away from the metal margin of the crowns which was then visible and unsightly. Thus, the plaintiff had to have all the crowns cut off and replaced. Specials (new crowns and periodontal surgery) were $9,000.

The case was settled prior to trial for $47,500. Kenneth P. Liroff, D.D.S., J.D., of THE DENTALAW GROUP, Ft. Lauderdale, FL represented the plaintiff. C. Daniel Petrie, Esq., Ft. Lauderdale, FL for the defendant.

The post Negligence $47,500.00 appeared first on Lane & Glassman.

The plaintiff was a forty-five year old retailer who had eight teeth prepared in four quadrants as abutments for four bridges after having periodontal treatment. During the crown and bridge phase of treatment, the plaintiff visited the periodontist for maintenance examinations and was told by the periodontist that the crowns were improperly contoured and had open margins. The periodontist spoke to the defendant dentist and sent several notes describing the deficiencies he found, each time requesting that the crowns be remade. A second defendant dentist then performed a root canal on one of the prepared teeth by removing the bridge which was only temporarily cemented in place. At one of the visits, after an instrument broke off in the canal but before completing of the root canal and recovery of the instrument, a dental assistant inadvertently cemented the bridge back with permanent cement. The plaintiff required replacement of the bridges, three of which could easily be removed since they were only temporarily cemented. He also required the root canal to be completed properly and replacement of the bridge over that tooth which had been cut off. The plaintiff’s subsequent dental treatment is being performed while the plaintiff is a guest of the State of Florida’s penal system. The case was settled just prior to the trial which the plaintiff could never have attended. The attorneys for the defense never knew that the plaintiff had “moved”.

The case was settled prior to trial for $21,000. Kenneth P. Liroff, D.D.S., J.D., of THE DENTALAW GROUP, Ft. Lauderdale, FL represented the plaintiff. C. Daniel Petrie, Esq., and Jon Derrevere, Esq., Ft. Lauderdale, FL for the defendants.

The post Improperly Contoured Crowns & Bridges – $21,000.00 appeared first on Lane & Glassman.

Plaintiff was a university-level professor with a Ph.D., in her mid-40s, who underwent extensive implant supported crown and bridge reconstruction by her general dentist. Because the lower posterior teeth were either over-prepared or were otherwise too short, the lower bridge was unstable and torqued itself loose, resulting in a failure of the restoration.

The case settled during a mediation conference for $35,000.00. Broward County (FL) Circuit Court Case No. 94-010377. Sharon M. Sabel and Kenneth P. Liroff, D.D.S., J.D., of The Dental Law Group, Ft. Lauderdale, FL represented the plaintiff. Steven Billing, Esq., of Billing, Cochran, Heath, Mauro & Lyles, Fort Lauderdale, FL for the defendant.

The post Failed Crown & Bridge Treatment – $35,000.00 appeared first on Lane & Glassman.

Plaintiff was a 50 year old insurance company claims adjuster who had been under the care of the same general dentist for 16 years. This dentist only treats patients with dental insurance and never charges the patient for any services; all charges are submitted to the patients’ insurance company. When plaintiff saw an EOB (explanation of benefits) reflecting charges for treatment which she didn’t believe was performed, she called the dentist and complained to the receptionist and asked to speak with the dentist. He refused to speak with her and refused to give her an appointment. When she sought a new dentist she learned that the complete upper and lower bridges, recently made by the defendant, were substandard and required replacement. The crowns were too short, the bite was collapsed, the gingivae were congested, there were inadequate embrasures and there were open margins. See Photos.

The dentist’s defense was that the patient was “non-compliant” and refused to see a periodontist to whom he claimed to have referred her. After finding a new dentist, plaintiff was seen by two periodontists, each of whom found no evidence of intrinsic periodontal disease but did find that the defective bridges were compromising the periodontium and their opinions were that replacement of the bridges would “cure” her periodontal compromise. The bridges were replaced and the periodontal compromise disappeared.

The case was settled prior to trial and after mediation for $65,000. Kenneth P. Liroff, D.D.S., J.D., of

The post Failed Bridges- $65,000.00 appeared first on Lane & Glassman.

Middle-aged homemaker sought replacement for her 12-crown upper bridge from defendant general dentist and the bridge was made and remade and remade. The dentist accepted the bridge even though there was a “rock” in it and it failed to fully seat which caused open margins. The plaintiff insisted on a refund and the dentist sent her a check for approximately $2,500.00, representing his net fee for the bridge. When the patient saw other dentists to have the bridge replaced, she learned that the replacement would costs close to $7,000.00. She sought counsel and this case followed. A subsequent dentist was able to replace the defective bridge for just under $6,000.00.

The case was settled prior to trial for $30,000. Kenneth P. Liroff, D.D.S., J.D., of THE DENTALAW GROUP, Ft. Lauderdale, FL represented the plaintiff. Mark C. Burton, Esq., Ft. Lauderdale, FL for the defendant.

The post Failed Bridges-$ 30,000.00 appeared first on Lane & Glassman.

Plaintiff, who was a 39 year old geriatric attendant, sued defendant general dentist who made nine single crowns and a three-unit fixed bridge during a thirteen month course of treatment, and alleged that the bridge and crowns were overcontoured and extending too far under her gums and therefore caused her periodontal disease. She also alleged that her bite had been changed sufficiently to have caused her to suffer injury to her temporomandibular joint (TMJ).

As a result of the dentist’s negligence, the patient had to undergo periodontal surgery, root canal therapy and splint therapy for the TMJ. The bridge and nine crowns required replacement and three additional crowns were placed. The defendant dentist claimed that the patient was non-compliant and frequently broke appointments and failed to follow treatment recommendations of her other treating dentists.

A California jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, awarding her $57,477. Plaintiff’s experts were Galen Wagnild, D.D.S., San Francisco, CA (prosthodontics); Scott Milliken, D.D.S., Burlingame, CA (periodontics); Barry Staley, D.D.S., Aptos, CA (prosthodontics); Alton Lacy, D.D.S., San Francisco, CA (general dentistry). Defendants experts were: Warden Noble, D.D.S., San Francisco, CA (prosthodontics); Joseph Krajewski, D.D.S., San Francisco, CA (periodontics). Monterey County (CA) Superior Court, Case No. 92283.

Edwin J. Zinman, D.D.S., J.D., of Dental Law Group, San Francisco, CA represented the plaintiff. David G. Brown, Esq., and Kathleen Murphy, Esq., San Diego, CA represented the defendant.

The post Defective Bridgework – $ 57,477.00 appeared first on Lane & Glassman.

The plaintiff was a thirty-eight year old mail carrier who had been receiving regular dental care from the defendant general dentist for several years. He complained about a “white spot” on his gums above a maxillary central incisor tooth and later noticed pus exuding from this spot. The defendant suggested that the plaintiff see a partner defendant dentist. That dentist performed periodontal surgery which resulted in significant recession of the gingiva around the necks of the upper anterior teeth revealing considerable tooth and root structure. The plaintiff claimed that he should have been referred to a periodontist. The plaintiff’s subsequent treating dentist found a maxillary anterior bridge constructed by the first dentist to be defective and the source of the periodontal abscess. The plaintiff was referred to a periodontist who was critical ofthe second dentist’s attempt at periodontal therapy. The plaintiff required replacement of his three unit bridge and gingival graft surgery. All dental expense was paid by dental insurance.

The case settled for $24,000 prior to trial.

The post Defective Bridge – $24,000.00 appeared first on Lane & Glassman.

The fifty-six year old plaintiff visited the defedant general dentist for reconstructive dental treatment. She was missing most of her teeth and her remaining teeth were in general disrepair with significant amounts of bone having been lost to periodontal disease. The only acceptable treatment was the extraction of her remaining teeth and the construction of complete dentures. The defendant told her this and she refused, insisting on implants. Although the defendant resisted, he eventually relented and referred the patient for the insertion of blade implants by an oral surgeon. Upon her return, the defendant made fixed bridgework which he attached to the implants and which failed immediately. The patient went from dentist to dentist to get her ill-fitting and loose bridgework recemented, each time being told that she needed extraction of her remaining teeth and full dentures. She sued the defendant dentist, taking the position that he did exactly what she wanted knowing that it was wrong to do so.

The case was settled prior to trial for $25,000. Kenneth P. Liroff, D.D.S., J.D., of

The post Crown & Bridge Treatment-$ 25,000.00 appeared first on Lane & Glassman.

Plaintiff was a 60ish homemaker who was referred to the defendant endodontist because of continued sensitivity following crown placement on a lower premolar tooth. A conventional root canal procedure was performed and the patient continued to complain of sensitivity. Within six weeks following the root canal, the endodontist told the plaintiff that she had to “scrape [her] roots” and performed an apicoectomy. The endodontist usually used a written consent form which advised patients of the risk of nerve injury but inexplicably never gave that form to the patient. The patient’s inferior alveolar nerve was surgically traumatized near the mental foramen and the patient is left with a permanently painful, burning numbness of her lower lip and skin overlying her chin to the midline.

The case settled on the Saturday before a Monday trial. Broward County, Florida, Circuit Court Case No. 95-11593 (18). Kenneth P. Liroff, D.D.S., J.D., of , Ft. Lauderdale, FL, for the plaintiff; Mark C. Burton, Esq., Ft. Lauderdale, FL, for the defendant.

The post Consent Settlement $ 100,000.00 appeared first on Lane & Glassman.