El Paso County, Colorado. The jury returned a defense verdict in a dental malpractice case tried by Dewhirst & Dolven counsel Marilyn Doig. Plaintiff, a minor, treated with the Defendant dentist for over four years. Prior to coming to Defendant, another dentist advised Plaintiff she needed jaw surgery to realign her jaw and correct her malocclusion and teeth grinding. Plaintiff and her parents elected not to have jaw surgery and did not want any teeth extracted. Plaintiff wanted her teeth straightened and a space created for an implant to be placed in a location where a natural tooth never developed.
In addition to general preventive dental care, Defendant provided orthodontia to help realign Plaintiff’s malocclusion. Although Plaintiff insisted she wore her rubber bands as instructed, the jury agreed with Defendant that Plaintiff was non-compliant, causing treatment which could have been completed in 2 to 2 ½ years to extend over four years.
During the time Plaintiff was in braces, the occlusal surfaces of her teeth were worn and eroded due to the malocclusion, bruxism (teeth grinding) and alleged gastric reflux from a wheat allergy. In braces, a patient cannot wear a night guard to prevent grinding and tooth destruction because the night guard inhibits movement of the teeth. Defendant treated the wear with composites and sealants. If the orthodontia had been completed within the expected 2 years, Plaintiff would have been prescribed a night guard and suffered much less wear and erosion to her teeth. Plaintiff’s treating dentists and experts testified Plaintiff will need a complete reconstruction of her teeth now and at least two more times because of her young age, costing approximately $180,000.
Defendant also placed an implant in Plaintiff, which ultimately failed. Plaintiff argued the implant failed because there was not sufficient bone to support it. Defendant argued the implant was placed properly but 5 of every 100 implants in that area of the jaw fail without anyone being negligent, and that this implant was unfortunately one of those cases.
Plaintiff attempted to infer at trial that Defendant dentist records were altered, but because of Plaintiff’s total lack of evidence to support the allegation, the argument was disallowed by the Court. The jury returned a complete defense verdict. After post trial motions, the Court awarded Defendant his costs and fees. Smith, et. al. v. Platt, DDS, Case No. 2010CV5452.