New York Verdicts
Find out about the most important recent New York cases, selected by VerdictSearch editors. Coverage includes Bronx, Kings, Queens, New York, Nassau, Suffolk and Westchester counties. Subscribe to VerdictSearch for access to all New York verdictsPricing OptionsType:
Verdict-Defendant
State:
New York
Venue:
Westchester County
Court:
Westchester Supreme
Injury Type(s):
other-infection; other-bone graft; dental; dental-tooth loss
Case Type:
Medical Malpractice – Dentist, Misdiagnosis, Informed Consent, Negligent Treatment, Wrong Site/Procedure
Case Name:
Kathleen Gardner v. Evan Chafitz and Jeffrey Pike,
No. 2655/11
Date:
November 8, 2013
Plaintiff(s):
Kathleen Gardner (Female, 44 Years)
Plaintiff Attorney(s):
Jason B. Kessler;
Law Offices of Jason B. Kessler, White Plains, NY, of counsel to Morton Povman PC, Forest Hills, NY;
for
Kathleen Gardner
Defendant(s):
Evan Chafitz,
Jeffrey Pike
Defense Attorney(s):
William S. Spiegel;
Kolenovsky Spiegel LLP;
New York,
NY,
for
Jeffrey Pike ■ None reported;
for
Evan Chafitz
Insurer(s):
Dentist’s Advantage for Pike
On May 26, 2010, plaintiff Kathleen Gardner, 44, an attorney, was examined by her dentist, Dr. Jeffrey Pike. Gardner claimed that she was suffering severe pain that stemmed from a molar. Pike determined that an extraction was necessary, and Gardner ultimately underwent extraction of tooth No. 3, which is a molar of the right side of the upper jaw. Gardner claimed that the wrong tooth was extracted. Gardner sued Pike and a subsequent treating dentist, Dr. Evan Chafitz. Gardner alleged that Pike failed to properly diagnose the source of her pain, that he failed to obtain informed consent to the removal of tooth No. 3, that his actions constituted malpractice and negligence, that Chafitz failed to properly treat tooth No. 2, and that Chafitz’s failure constituted malpractice. Gardner’s counsel ultimately discontinued the claim against Chafitz. The matter proceeded to a trial against Pike. Gardner claimed that her pain stemmed from tooth No. 2, which is the middle of the three molars that occupy the right side of the upper jaw. She also claimed that she specifically requested the removal of tooth No. 2. Gardner’s expert dentist opined that pathological evidence did not indicate a problem that was related to tooth No. 3, but that the evidence did support the need for an extraction of tooth No. 2. Pike claimed that he properly diagnosed the source of Gardner’s pain. He claimed that he alternately tapped tooth No. 2 and tooth No. 3, that pain was reported when he tapped tooth No. 3, and that pain was not reported when he tapped tooth No. 2. He further claimed that Gardner had previously sustained a fracture of tooth No. 3. He claimed that the tooth had been the source of recurrent problems. Pike’s expert dentist opined that the correct tooth was extracted. Pike also claimed that Gardner consented to the removal of tooth No. 3.
Gardner claimed that she required extraction of tooth No. 2, but that Pike extracted an adjacent tooth. She also claimed that the extraction caused an infection that eroded bone of her upper jaw. Gardner ultimately underwent extraction of tooth No. 2. She claimed that her infection necessitated the application of a graft of bony matter. She also claimed that the infection necessitated performance of maxillary sinus floor augmentation: augmentation of the bone of the upper jaw. She subsequently underwent the application of an implant. Gardner claimed that she suffers residual discomfort. She sought recovery of $28,000 for past medical expenses, unspecified damages for past pain and suffering, and unspecified damages for future pain and suffering. Defense counsel contended that Gardner’s infection was not related to the extraction of tooth No. 3. He claimed that Gardner had experienced recurrent infections of tooth No. 2.
The jury rendered a defense verdict.
Judge:
William J. Giacomo
Demand:
$175,000 (from Pike; insurance coverage’s limit: $1,000,000)
Offer:
None
Trial Length:
6
days
Trial Deliberations:
25
minutes
Jury Vote:
6-0
Jury Composition:
3 male/ 3 female
This report is based on information that was provided by plaintiff’s counsel and Pike’s counsel. Chafitz’s counsel was not asked to contribute.