TRIGEMINAL NEURALGIA & FIBRO-OSSEOUS ANKYLOSIS:
$3 Million Verdict
www.CHARLESJEROMEWARE.COM.
“Here to make a difference”.
This dental malpractice update is presented by the
Maryland-based national law firm of Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., Attorneys and Counselors. The information provided is not intended to
be legal advice nor medical advice, and should not be accepted as such.
This Queens County, New York dental malpractice case
included allegation of (1) failure to timely respond to complaints of swelling
and pain, (2) a two-day delay in diagnosis, (3) trigeminal neuralgia, (4)
aggravation of left TMJ dysfunction, and (5) fibrous ankylosis. This action involved a 44-year old female
patient.
The plaintiff
had presented to the defendant dentist with left jaw pain and an inability to
fully open her mouth, and which prompted a CT-scan that showed bilateral
temporal mandibular joint disorder (TMJ).
The dentist defendant injected her left jaw space with local anesthetic
in order to manipulate her jaw. The plaintiff maintained that she called two
days later and complained of increased pain and the onset of swelling. The
plaintiff contended that the swelling was a clear sign of infection and that
the defendant negligently failed to prescribe antibiotics or refer the patient
to a specialist.
The plaintiff maintained that the defendant’s negligence resulted in a three day delay in the diagnosis of infection and that the delay caused her infection to spread to the deep spaces of the jaw and jaw joint. She underwent surgery to treat the infection, suffered from trigeminal neuralgia, and required a seven day hospitalization that left her with permanent fibro-osseous ankylosis of the left jaw joint. The plaintiff contended that the partial fusion prevents her from fully opening her mouth, is very painful, and limits the foods she can eat.
The plaintiff maintained that the defendant’s negligence resulted in a three day delay in the diagnosis of infection and that the delay caused her infection to spread to the deep spaces of the jaw and jaw joint. She underwent surgery to treat the infection, suffered from trigeminal neuralgia, and required a seven day hospitalization that left her with permanent fibro-osseous ankylosis of the left jaw joint. The plaintiff contended that the partial fusion prevents her from fully opening her mouth, is very painful, and limits the foods she can eat.
Subsequently, the
plaintiff presented with severe left jaw pain of several weeks duration. The
defendant ordered a CT-scan that showed a complete TMJ dislocation on the left
side and a partial TMJ dislocation on the right side. The defendant injected
anesthesia into the left side and prepared bilateral splints. There was no
claim of complaints of swelling as of this time and no contentions that the
defendant was as of yet negligent.
The plaintiff maintained that two days after the first visit, she called complaining of the onset of swelling, as well as increased pain and that the defendant advised her that the swelling was normal. The plaintiff contended that when she called the following day, complaining of heightened symptoms, the defendant prescribed Neurontin. The defendant denied that the plaintiff complained of swelling and his records contained no mention of such an advisement by the plaintiff. The plaintiff maintained that the need for such a strong neurological pain medicine as Neurontin should have prompted an office visit, irrespective of the question of complaints of swelling. The plaintiff contended that if she would have been seen at this time, the infection would have been diagnosed in a timely manner and the plaintiff would have avoided the trigeminal neuralgia and fibro-osseous ankylosis.
A few days later, the plaintiff presented to a non-party ENT physician who diagnosed the infection, and administered IV antibiotics. The plaintiff contended that the delay permitted the infection to heighten. The plaintiff maintained that she will permanently suffer extensive pain and difficulties opening the left side of her jaw. The plaintiff established that three oral surgeons have recommended joint replacement surgery. The plaintiff has yet to decide to undergo the surgery.
The plaintiff is a law office manager who was earning approximately $100,000 per year. The plaintiff contended that because of the continuing pain and need for medication, she can no longer work. The jury found the defendant 90% negligent, the plaintiff 10% comparatively negligent and rendered a gross award of $3,000,000.
The plaintiff maintained that two days after the first visit, she called complaining of the onset of swelling, as well as increased pain and that the defendant advised her that the swelling was normal. The plaintiff contended that when she called the following day, complaining of heightened symptoms, the defendant prescribed Neurontin. The defendant denied that the plaintiff complained of swelling and his records contained no mention of such an advisement by the plaintiff. The plaintiff maintained that the need for such a strong neurological pain medicine as Neurontin should have prompted an office visit, irrespective of the question of complaints of swelling. The plaintiff contended that if she would have been seen at this time, the infection would have been diagnosed in a timely manner and the plaintiff would have avoided the trigeminal neuralgia and fibro-osseous ankylosis.
A few days later, the plaintiff presented to a non-party ENT physician who diagnosed the infection, and administered IV antibiotics. The plaintiff contended that the delay permitted the infection to heighten. The plaintiff maintained that she will permanently suffer extensive pain and difficulties opening the left side of her jaw. The plaintiff established that three oral surgeons have recommended joint replacement surgery. The plaintiff has yet to decide to undergo the surgery.
The plaintiff is a law office manager who was earning approximately $100,000 per year. The plaintiff contended that because of the continuing pain and need for medication, she can no longer work. The jury found the defendant 90% negligent, the plaintiff 10% comparatively negligent and rendered a gross award of $3,000,000.
[http://www.jvra.com/verdict_trak/article/190676]
No comments:
Post a Comment