Michael E. Wasserman, Esq. SBN#107337
4640 Admiralty Way #500
Marina Del Rey, CA 90292
310-496-5722
310-598-3025 (fax)
Attorney For Plaintiff SHAY BARTON
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE-UNLIMITED JURISDICDTION
SHAY BARTONPlaintiff,
Vs.
RICHARD HANSEN, D.D.S.. ANDY SANG YOON, D.D.S. RICHARD HANSEN, D.D.S., A DENTAL CORPORATION,AND DOES 1 TO 20, inclusive
Defendants / )
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
) / Case No.: 30-2011-00504127
Judge: Monroe
Dept: C-16
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL
- Professional Negligence-Dental Malpractice
COMES NOW PLAINTIFF, SHAY BARTONand alleges as follows:
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
1. Plaintiff SHAY BARTON at all relevant times was a resident of County of Orange in the State of California.
2. At all times relevant to the complaint, the acts complained of occurred at 1031 Rosecrans Ave, Suite 104, Fullerton, California,wherethe named Defendants and DOES 1 to 20 provided dental treatment and care to Plaintiff.
3. At all times relevant to thecomplaint, Defendant RICHARD HANSEN, D.D.S (AKA RICHARD HANSEN, D.M.D.) (California Dental Board License Number 26070), ANDY SANG YOON, D.D.S.(AKA ANDY SANG YOON, D.M.D.) (California Dental Board License Number 42717) and DOES 1-20 were dentists licensed to practice dentistry in the State of California.Defendant RICHARD HANSEN, D.D.S. operated the dental practice located at this address through RICHARD HANSEN, D.D.S., A DENTAL CORPORATION. All funds paid for the dental treatment performed on the Plaintiff were paid to Defendant RICHARD HANSEN, D.D.S. or on information and belief, RICHARD HANSEN, D.D.S., A DENTAL CORPORATION (AKA DR. RICHARD HANSEN, D.M.D., A DENTAL CORPORATION.
4. The true names and capacities of Defendants named herein as DOES 1-20 are
unknown to Plaintiff who therefore sues said Defendants, and each of them, by such fictitious names. Plaintiff will amend the Complaint to show their true names and capacities when theyhave been ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that each of said fictitiously named Defendants is responsible in some manner for the occurrences herein alleged and that Plaintiff’s injures as herein alleged were proximately caused by such Defendants acts and/or omissions.
5. At all times herein mentioned, Defendants and DOES 1-20, and each of them, were the agents, ostensible agents or employees, employees, joint ventures, shareholders, partners of each of the other Defendants, and each of them, and in doing the things hereinafter mentioned were acting within the course and scope of their authority as such agents, employees, shareholders, joint ventures, and partners and with the knowledge, ratification, approval and/or consent of their Co-Defendants.
6. Plaintiff consulted with Defendants, and each of them for the purpose of obtaining diagnosis and treatment and employed Defendants and each of them to care and treat Plaintiff, and do all things necessary for plaintiff’s dental care and treatment. Plaintiff is not a dentist and not skilled in dental knowledge and relied upon the Defendant dental practitioners for their advice and opinions. Notice pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 364 was given to Defendants on or aboutJune 7, 2011. The complaint has been filed within the time period allowed by law for Plaintiff’s discovery of the negligence of the Defendants.
7. On January 27, 2011, Plaintiff SHAY BARTON through her attorney sent a grievance letter to the named Defendants. Defendants chose to completely ignore the letter and Plaintiff’s offer to resolve her grievance for a full refund of fees and release of all claims. The letter was notice of a grievance to and against the named Defendants with documentation to support the grievance. A copy of the letter and documentation is attached as Exhibit 1. The letter advised the Defendants that SHAY BARTON had sustained a disfiguring injury as result of the dental care received in their office. Defendants RICHARD HANSEN, D.D.S. and ANDY SANG YOON, D.D.S. were specifically advised that they failed to diagnose and appropriately treat a tooth borne infection in the lower right teeth of plaintiff, tooth 31 and 32 (lower right second molar and lower right third molar). As a result of their failures a prominent portion of Plaintiff’s face along her right jaw law now exhibits a large permanent scar that will require plastic surgery for revision. Photographs of the lesion and the subsequent scar were provided to the named Defendants in Exhibit 1 for review along with radiographs showing that the infection was tooth related which the Defendants denied to Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s treating medical doctors, and to Plaintiff’s subsequent treating dentists.
The letter to the Defendants set forth that the 10 porcelain veneers that they had placed on teeth 4 to 13 were verified by a board certified specialist in prosthodontics to be defective and below that standard of practice in the community due to verified open crown margins and overhanging crown margins that were visible in photographs and radiographs supplied by Plaintiff’s attorney in Exhibit 1. Further, the defendants were advised that the crowns that they had placed on teeth number 18 and 19 (lower left 2nd molar and lower right first molar) had large gaps at the margins with inadequate endodontic posts. Due to damage to these two teeth and others that resulted from the substandard care of the Defendants, Plaintiff’s teeth number 1 (upper right third molar), tooth number 2 (upper right second molar), tooth number 15 (upper left second molar), tooth number 16 (upper right third molar, tooth number 18 (lower left 2nd molar), and tooth number 19 (lower left first molar) were removed. Defendants were given radiographs and photographs exhibiting the substandard dentistry and the damage to Plaintiff’s teeth and jawbone. Defendants were advised that the Plaintiff would need replacement of all of the dental veneers and dental implants with crowns.
8. Plaintiff’s January 27, 2011 letter advised the Defendants that Plaintiff would agree to resolve her complaint/grievance for return of all monies paid to the Defendants and would exchange a release of all claims. The Defendants response to the January 27, 2011 was complete silence. The Defendants did not request any further information. The Defendants did not request any letters or records from Plaintiff’s treating doctors. The Defendants did not forward the letter to anyone that would or could resolve Plaintiff’s grievance. The Defendants completely ignored the Plaintiff’s grievance and offer to resolve her complaint for a complete refund. The Defendants refusal to respond to Plaintiff’s grievance was a breach of their obligations as Plaintiff’s treating dentists.
9. Plaintiff through her treating dentist, David Eggleston, D.D.S. requested a complete copy of her dental record pursuant to written authorization. In addition, Plaintiff on her own requested a copy of her dental record pursuant to written authorization. The Defendants would not respond to the written authorizations. It was necessary for the Plaintiff to proceed with a complaint to the Dental Board of California to obtain a copy of her records which she was entitled to as a matter of law through Health and Safety Code Section 123110.
10. On June 7, 2011 Plaintiff’s attorney sent the Defendants a 90 day letter of Intent to Commence Legal Action attached as Exhibit 2. The letter repeated the facts that were set for in the letter of January 27, 2011. The Defendant had copies of the radiographs and photographs documenting the dental injuries suffered by the Plaintiff as shown in Exhibit 1. A demand was made for a copy of Plaintiff’s dental record along with a copy of her account ledger. Pursuant to Evidence Code Section 1158, Plaintiff’s counsel was entitled to a copy of the documents. Defendants decided to ignore the June 7, 2011 letter the same as the grievance sent to them on January 27, 2011; they did nothing. They did not respond to the letter. They did not send the records as required by law. They ignored Plaintiff counsel’s letter. They chose to invite a lawsuit rather than entertain any negotiation to resolve this matter short of the filing and service of a lawsuit.
I.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
FOR PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE AGAINST DEFENANT D.D.S., RICHARD HANSEN, D.D.S., A DENTAL CORPORATION,
AND ANDY SANG YOON, D.D.S,and DOES 1-20
11. Plaintiff hereby incorporates as though set forth in full, paragraphs 1 through 10 herein.
12. Plaintiff, SHAY BARTON, was a dental patient of the above referenced DefendantsRICHARD HANSEN, D.D.S.., ANDY SANG YOON, D.D.S., and RICHARD HANSEN, D.D.S., A DENTAL CORPORATIONand DOES 1-20. Plaintiffreceived dental treatment from the Defendants from April 2009 up to approximately December 6, 2010. Plaintiff SHAY BARTONengaged Defendantsand DOES 1-20 to care, treat, and to perform and recommend all things necessary for herscare and treatment.Defendants RICHARD HANSEN, D.D.S., ANDY SANG YOON, DDS, RICHARD HANSEN, D.D.S,, A DENTAL CORPORATIONand DOES 1-20 and each of them agreed in the course of such employment, to treat, diagnose and to care for Plaintiff and to perform all things necessary and proper in connection therewith.
13. In the treatment of the Plaintiff, Defendants provided her with 10 veneers on teeth numbered 4-13. These teeth constitute the teeth on the upper jaw from 2ndbicuspid on the right to the second bicuspid on the right. The preparation and placement of these dental restorations, veneers, was improperly performed and resulted in injury the Plaintiff. Dr. Yoon performed most but not all of the treatment upon these teeth. Upon examination by a board certified prosthodontist of 35 years of experience it was determined that none of the veneers fit the prepared teeth. The veneers had open margins that would result in the entrance of bacteria and debris into the prepared tooth structure resulting in decay and damage to natural tooth structure and premature failure of the restorations and or inflammation of the surrounding gum tissue resulting in potential loss of supporting bone. It was below the standard of practice to place and cement veneers that had open margins and overhanging margins on Plaintiff’s teeth. The Defendants both placed the improper restorations, then failed to note that the restorations did not fit, and then failed to both advise the Plaintiff that the restorations required replacement. The cost of repair and replacement of these veneers is over $15,000.00.
14. The Plaintiff complained to the Defendants of a swelling on the lower right cheek near the border of the mandible. The Defendants failed to determine if the swelling was tooth borne. Defendant Richard Hansen, D.D.S. advised the Plaintiff that the infection was due to causes other than her teeth and referred her to a dermatologist. Plaintiff subsequently went to medical doctors as no medical doctor was able to determine a non-dental cause for the infection which became a visible lesion on Plaintiff’s face. Dr. Richard when contacted continuously denied that the infection was from her teeth. The Defendants never referred Plaintiff to a dental specialist to verify that the problem was not dentally related. Plaintiff eventually went on referral from another health care practitioner to an oral and maxillofacial surgeon who immediately diagnosed an infection that was coming from her lower right molars, teeth 31 and 32. The cause of the infection was tooth related and always was related to her teeth. As a result of the Defendants failure to diagnose and treat the tooth infection and or appropriately refer the Plaintiff to a dental specialist, the lesion on Plaintiff’s faith continued and resulted in a permanent scare. Plaintiff was left with a prominent red scar on the border of her mandible as show in Exhibit 1. The scar requires plastic surgery for revision at a cost in excess of $5000.00.
15. The named Defendantsand DOES 1-20 breached their duty of care as set forth in paragraphs 7 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, and 14. The Defendants performed restorative dental treatment, crowns and veneers, that did not comply with the standards of the dental community as the restorations placed had open and overhanging margins, defects that preclude placement of a restoration. The Defendants were negligent in diagnoses in that they failed to diagnose a dental infection and or refer Plaintiff to a dental specialist. The Defendants denied a dental infection as the cause of her facial infection and swelling despite being presented with all evidence that it was a dental infection. Defendants tried to treat the area when it was too late to prevent the damage to the Plaintiff’s face leaving her with a permanent visible scar unless it is revised by a plastic surgeon
14. As a proximate result of the negligence of the named Defendantsand DOES 1-20, and each of them, Plaintiff was injured in her body, mind, and emotion and said injuries resulted in physical pain, distress, suffering as well as a loss of the quality and enjoyment of life all to her damage in an amount according to proof. Plaintiff’s face was disfigured and her teeth ruined as a results of Defendants’ treatment and care. Plaintiff has incurred past dental expenseswith the Defendants in a sum estimated at $30,000.00 and will incur future dental and/or medical and related expensesat a cost of $35,000.00 or according to proof at the time of trial.
PLAINTIFF SHAY BARTONdemands a jury trial in the within matter.
WHEREFORE, PlaintiffSHAY BARTON prays judgment as follows:
First Cause of Action:
1. General Damages according to Proof;
2. Special Damages according to Proof;
For the costs of suit incurred herein and for such other further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
Dated:
_By: MICHAEL E. WASSERMAN
ATTORNEYSFOR PLAINTIFF
SHAY BARTON
EXHIBIT 1
EXHIBIT 2
1
______
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL