A fervent and insightful defense waged by Goldberg Segalla partner Michael D. Shalhoub and attorney Rebecca R. Rabideau secured a defense verdict in favor of a dentist accused of malpractice in a lawsuit that dragged on for years to become the central New York county’s longest-running court case.

The plaintiff claimed in her lawsuit that the extraction of nine teeth and subsequent placement of implants — all of which failed — exacerbated a neurological condition causing “neuropathic pain.” As a result, she claimed to experience significant daily facial pain and numbness, which she said made it impossible for her to use dentures or new implants in three of the four quadrants of her face. The relevant care took place 18 years ago, and the plaintiff was treated by numerous doctors for her complaints of pain and numbness.

The plaintiff’s lawsuit was commenced in 2013. Goldberg Segalla secured summary judgment, which was ultimately reversed by New York State’s Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

Also named as a co-defendant in the lawsuit was an oral surgeon who performed the extraction and implant work on the plaintiff. He was represented by separate counsel. No settlement demand was ever made. Instead, the plaintiff’s counsel sought from the jury $75,000 per year over the course of the plaintiff’s life expectancy — an amount which totaled approximately $3.1 million.

In delivering their defense, Mike and Rebecca — both of whom are part of Goldberg Segalla’s Management and Professional Liability practice group — were faced with the challenge of having to overcome a hurdle posed by differing deposition testimony between our client and the co-defendant. Specifically, the oral surgeon described having a conversation with our client whose opinion he claimed to have relied upon in determining what teeth to remove. Our client, now 84 years old, denied recollection of making any such recommendation and indicated at deposition that he would not have done so.

Mike and Rebecca worked closely with co-defendant’s counsel to harmonize the conflicting testimony, and though the oral surgeon maintained his position, our client testified that while he did not recall the discussion with co-defendant, he did not have any issue with the treatment plan.

Still, even though our client did not have any “hands-on” work involving the extractions and implants, plaintiff argued her care was a ‘joint-treatment situation,’ allegedly making our client vicariously liable for the co-defendant’s actions.

On an earlier appeal, the Fourth Department found a question of fact on that issue, and the trial court denied a directed verdict motion as to that issue. We argued to the jury that like generalists all over the country, our client referred the plaintiff to a specialist and, thus, he should not be responsible for the extractions and implants. We also pointed out that the plaintiff had been to scores of doctors for her pain, but did not ask any of them to testify at trial.

Due to the years of pain endured by the plaintiff, her plight generated sympathy, thus any cross-examination by Mike and Rebecca needed to be handled carefully, respectfully and with great skill to secure a favorable outcome.

Following two hours of deliberation over two days, the jury rejected the plaintiff’s claims, agreeing with Mike and Rebecca and delivering a verdict in favor of our client and co-defendant.

Assisting Mike and Rebecca in the win were Goldberg Segalla paralegals Susan Rose and Kayla Curtis. The victory was particularly special for Susan, who had worked on this case for many years.