Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Janis DANSBY, Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant, v. Dr. Joseph TRUMPATORI, Defendant, Jerry H. Lynn, D.D.S., Defendant-Appellant-Respondent.
Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alan Saks, J.), entered June 3, 2004, after a jury trial in an action for dental malpractice, apportioning fault 85% as against defendant-appellant, and, upon plaintiff's stipulation in lieu of a new trial on damages, awarding plaintiff $350,000 for past pain and suffering, reduced from $850,000, and $21,000 for future dental expenses, reduced from $65,000, unanimously modified, on the law, to increase the award for future dental treatment to $41,000, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.
The award for past pain and suffering, as reduced by the trial court, does not materially deviate from what is reasonable compensation, where, inter alia, plaintiff's temporary caps fell out, her permanent caps came loose, her crowns were too bulky, and her bridge was not fitted properly, causing inflamed gums, abscesses, bone loss, tooth decay and severe pain (cf. Rogovin v. Wasserman, 18 A.D.3d 400, 795 N.Y.S.2d 571 [2005]; Green v. Blanket, 18 A.D.3d 278, 794 N.Y.S.2d 645 [2005]; Hardwick v. Fensterstock, 258 A.D.2d 330, 685 N.Y.S.2d 446 [1999] ). Plaintiff's evidence supports a finding of $41,000 for future damages, and no reason appears for a reduction of the jury's award beyond that amount. A fair interpretation of the evidence supports the jury's finding of continuous treatment, largely one of credibility (see 298 A.D.2d 265, 748 N.Y.S.2d 383). The evidence also supports the jury's apportionment of liability, it appearing that defendant not only formulated, but was also actively involved in implementing, the defective treatment plan. Under the circumstances, it was not reversible error to permit plaintiff's attorney to raise, for impeachment purposes only, defendant's suspension from the practice of dentistry.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: December 08, 2005
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)