$______ VERDICT - MEDICAL MALPRACTICE - DENTAL - MAXILLOFACIAL SURGEON NEGLIGENCE - PLAINTIFF CONTENDS HE PRESENTED FOR EXTRACTION OF 2 TEETH BUT DEFENDANT SURGEON REMOVED ALL 11 OF PLAINTIFF'S REMAINING TEETH WITHOUT INFORMED CONSENT - DEFENDANT ARGUES PLAINTIFF'S CARE WAS APPROPRIATE AND HE SIGNED INFORMED CONSENT.

• Pages: 7-8

$8,826 VERDICT – MEDICAL MALPRACTICE – DENTAL – MAXILLOFACIAL SURGEON

NEGLIGENCE – PLAINTIFF CONTENDS HE PRESENTED FOR EXTRACTION OF 2 TEETH

BUT DEFENDANT SURGEON REMOVED ALL 11 OF PLAINTIFF’S REMAINING TEETH

WITHOUT INFORMED CONSENT – DEFENDANT ARGUES PLAINTIFF’S CARE WAS

APPROPRIATE AND HE SIGNED INFORMED CONSENT.

Broward County, FL

In this medical malpractice case, the plaintiff

asserted that the defendant maxillofacial surgeon

andpracticefailedtoobtaininformedconsent

from the plaintiff patient for procedures

performed casing the plaintiff to sustain injuries.

The defendant denied negligence and asserted

that consent was obtained and that removal of

“multiple unrestorable teeth” was well within the

standard of care.

The plaintiff claimed that the defendant surgeon failed

to obtain his informed consent to the removal of 11

teeth at the time of his surgery on June 28, 2017. The

plaintiff denied he was ever informed of the procedure

removing all of his remaining teeth. The plaintiff asserted

that he presented to the defendants on the date in

question to have only2 teeth (numbered 17 and 18) re-

moved. However, the defendant surgeon performed

the surgical removal of all of the teeth that were present

in the plaintiff’s upper and lower jaw. The plaintiff as-

serted that removal of the teeth without consent was a

violation of the standard of care and was negligent.

The plaintiff was contemporaneously and functionally

wearing a maxillary partial denture, which was to remain

in place and be unaffected by any mandibular surgery.

The extraction of teeth #6 and #7, and surgery to the

maxillary osseous ridges, rendered the maxilla unable to

support a maxillary denture. The plaintiff was also func-

tionally wearing a mandibular partial denture which was

to remain in place and be modified following the ex-

traction of teeth #17 and #18. The plaintiff maintained

that the extraction of the remaining teeth and osseous

surgery created a mandibular osseous architecture that

was insufficient for the fabrication of a mandibular den-

ture. The remaining osseous architectures of both the

maxillary and mandibular arches are insufficient for the

construction of standard maxillary and mandibular full

dentures. The plaintiff argued that the defendants failed

to follow the plaintiff’s dentist’s instructions, which were

only to evaluate certain teeth for extraction, and instead

removed the teeth without the plaintiff’s understanding

or consent.

The defendants specifically denied that any act or omis-

sion attributable to them was the legal cause of any

loss, injury or damage sustained by the plaintiff. The de-

fendants presented an expert maxillofacial surgeon who

testified that the defendants’ treatment of the plaintiff,

given his presentation, was entirely appropriate and that

there was no deviation from the standard of care.

The jury found in favor of the plaintiff and against the de-

fendant and awarded damages in the amount of

$8,826 for past medical expenses.

REFERENCE

Bajoo vs. Cardenas, et al. Case no. CACE19008539;

Judge Michele Towbin, 05-10-22.

Attorney for plaintiff: Colin Blackwood of Colin

Blackwood, LLC in Aventura, FL. Attorneys for

defendant: Jonathan P. Lynn and Lori B. Lewellen of

LaCava & Jacobson, P.A. in Fort Lauderdale, FL.

COMMENTARY

After the verdict, the defendants filed a motion for directed verdict

arguing that the jury returned an unexplainable verdict for the

plaintiff, awarding past dental expenses but nothing for future

medical expenses, or for past or future pain and suffering. The de-

fendant opined that it was interesting that the amount awarded

was precisely the amount that the defendants had charged the

plaintiff for his care and treatment. In other words, the jury verdict

would require the defendants merely to return to the plaintiff the

cost of his care and treatment by the defendants but awarded no

other damages.

During the trial, the court ruled that the plaintiff’s standard of care

expert, a general dentist, was not qualified under applicable

Florida law to render opinions regarding the standard of care of

the defendant, a board-certified oral and maxillofacial surgeon,

and permitted the plaintiff’s expert to testify only with regard to

the plaintiff’s damage claims. Thus, the defendant argued, the

plaintiff had no expert testimony to offer the jury with respect to

his claim that the defendants were negligent in failing to obtain in-

formed consent to the treatment that they provided.

At the close of the plaintiff’s case-in-chief, and again after all of

the evidence in the case, the defendants moved for a directed ver-

dict, arguing that the plaintiff had offered no competent, expert

testimony with respect to the claim that the defendant surgeon had

been negligent in failing to obtain informed consent to the extrac-

tion of his 11 remaining teeth, despite the signed consent form

which was in evidence. It was the defendants’ position that expert

witness testimony on the issue of the plaintiff’s consent to the sur-

gery was a legal requirement in order to create a jury question on

the plaintiff’s claim.

The defendant argued that the plaintiff completely failed to pro-

vide the jury with any properly credentialed expert testimony that

the defendants failed to obtain his informed consent to the treat-

ment provided. In an apparent attempt to offer qualified expert

testimony to support the plaintiff’s claim, the plaintiff elected to

read the deposition testimony of the defense expert. However, the

defendant’s expert’s testimony and his opinions were totally sup-

portive of the care provided by the defendants, including the pa-

tient’s informed consent to treatment and, by no means, could his

deposition testimony be construed as supportive of the plaintiff’s

claims. Thus, the defendant argued, the plaintiff simply did not

provide the jury with any properly qualified expert testimony to

support his claim, as required by Florida law. As a result, the de-

fendant argued, the court should grant the defendants’ pending

Motion for Directed Verdict.

FEATURED CASES 7

Florida Jury Verdict Review & Analysis

Subscribe Now