Plaintiff, a 32 year-old male, claimed the defendant general dentist negligently extracted his wisdom tooth. Permanent numbness (lingual anesthesia) on the entire right half of plaintiff's tongue was confirmed and not disputed.

Plaintiff's experts testified he suffered from major depression, major anxiety disorder, and post-traumatic stress disorder. He claimed lack of confidence, inability to speak clearly, permanent loss of taste on the right side of his tongue, and uncontrollable drooling. Psychiatric treatment was needed periodically for the rest of his life.

Plaintiff claimed $170,000 in medical bills, $333,000 in past loss earnings, and $250,000 in general damages. Plaintiff further claimed that his inability to speak clearly and psychological overlay caused future lost earnings in the amount of $4,300,000.00.

The Binding Arbitration was in favor of defendant. The arbitrator determined that the treatment performed by the defendant general dentist did not fall below the standard of care.

Plaintiff, a 23 year old female pedestrian, was crossing southbound on the sidewalk of Cerritos Town Center parking lot. The defendant was heading northbound in the side aisle and attempting to make a left turn heading westbound in the parking lot. The defendant was traveling approximately three to five miles per hour. Plaintiff stepped off the sidewalk and walked in front of the oncoming vehicle. The impact occurred while defendant had just made a left turn. Plaintiff claimed she landed on the insured’s vehicle’s hood and then flew off and landed on the ground.  Plaintiff claimed medical specials of $6, 841.45 and $1,300 in lost wages.  

Trial lasted three days. The jury deliberated for two hours and returned a defense verdict.

Plaintiff, a 35-year-old female, was crossing the street on her way to the store. The defendant was traveling southbound on Ross Street turning left at approximately 10 miles per hour onto 16th Street. The plaintiff entered the intersection as the defendant was making his left-turn. The accident occurred just before dark and there was very little light in the area when the accident occurred. Plaintiff was struck by the front of defendant's vehicle and fell to the ground.

Plaintiff sustained a scalp laceration, but also alleged cognitive problems and memory loss. Defendant claimed that it was dark and plaintiff was wearing dark clothing. Plaintiff's medical bills exceeded $52,000.

Plaintiff requested $162,000 at trial for her alleged neurological/cognitive deficits from the accident. Defendant offered $20,000.01, via a CCP § 998. After a 5-day jury trial, the jury deliberated for 3 hours and returned a verdict finding the defendant 80% at fault. The jury awarded no medical bills and $4,000 in general damages.

This is a case of disputed liability arising out of a two-vehicle rear-ended collision which occurred northbound on the I-5 Freeway, half a mile south of Camino del Estrella in the City of San Clemente, California. The plaintiff’s vehicle sustained rear-end damage and was declared a “total loss.” The plaintiff alleged a heavy impact as she was slowing to a stop at a speed of less than 5 miles per hour. The defendant attempted to stop before rear-ending the plaintiff at an estimated speed of 10-15 mph.

Plaintiff claimed personal injuries, including back pain, neck and upper trapezius/shoulder pain, and pain in the thigh area. Plaintiff’s doctors alleged a thoracic vertebrae fracture and wedging to the spine.  Defendant disputed the extent of plaintiff’s injuries and reasonableness of the corresponding treatment.

Plaintiff requested a verdict in excess of $50,000. Defendant offered $10,000.00 by way of CCP § 998. After a 4-day trial, the jury deliberated for ten minutes and returned a defense verdict.

Plaintiff claimed the defendant general dentist negligently placed six veneers on her upper front teeth. Plaintiff alleged she returned to the defendant's office, but the defendant refused to remove and replace the veneers. Thereafter, she sought the opinions of four different dentists who all recommended removal and replacement of the veneers. Two of plaintiff's subsequent treating dentists testified at trial that the veneers were below the standard of care.

Defendant's own expert examined plaintiff and recommended the veneers be removed and replaced. Regardless, defendant alleged that he complied with the standard of care, and his treatment was appropriate under the circumstances.

Plaintiff requested $50,000 in economic damages, and $200,000 in non-economic damages. The jury returned with a defense verdict after two hours of deliberation.

Plaintiff filed a Code of Civil Procedure § 998 demand of $99,999.99. Defendant filed a Code of Civil Procedure § 998 offer in the amount of $25,001.00. Defendant has filed a memorandum of costs in the amount of $13,800.

Plaintiff sued a hotel resort with a golf course alleging that he was standing on a public street adjacent to the course and was struck in the head with an errant golf ball from the golf course. The plaintiff presented several photographs to the jury depicting major gaps and holes in the fencing of the golf course and as a result, the plaintiff was able to obtain 40% liability on Mr. Reisinger's client, the defendant hotel. However, Mr. Reisinger did obtain from the jury 60% liability on the plaintiff who was merely standing on a public street adjacent to the golf course.

The plaintiff was in the course and scope of his employment at the time of the incident and received over $60,000 in past medical treatment for his alleged brain injury as well as his cervical injury. During the civil trial, the plaintiff presented testimony from numerous medical experts that he suffered a brain injury as a result of the incident and an injury to his cervical spine. The plaintiff also presented numerous doctors who testified that he would need a cervical fusion in the future for the injury he suffered to his neck. The plaintiff testified and presented evidence that he has not returned to work since the June 1, 2005 incident due to his inability to concentrate and his anger problems since the incident. The plaintiff made a demand to the jury for $162,000 in past loss of earnings and $60,000 for past medical expenses. The plaintiff made a demand to the jury of $80,000 for future medical expenses for his cervical fusion and care and treatment of his brain injury. The plaintiff presented a total of $312,000 in specials to the jury. In addition to the $312,000 in specials to the jury, the plaintiff demanded $500,000 for pain and suffering for a total demand to the jury of $812,000.

Not only did the jury find 60% liability on the plaintiff for standing on the public street behind the golf course, they only awarded him $2,205 in past medical expenses which only total the first trip he made to the emergency room. The plaintiff did not receive any additional past medical expenses or any future medical expenses. Additionally, the jury did not award plaintiff any past or future loss of earnings.

Plaintiff's Motion for a New Trial and Additur was denied. The jury poll varied and the trial lasted two weeks.

Plaintiff's upper left wisdom tooth (tooth No. 16) was extracted by a general dentist on December 16, 2006. Plaintiff returned for a post-operative examination on December 22, 2006. According to the defendant, there were no signs of an infection on that date. However, plaintiff was hospitalized on December 24, 2008, for four days for left facial cellulitis secondary to the extraction.

Plaintiff claimed he was not informed of the risks and alternatives of the extraction procedure, and the defendant failed to diagnose the infection at the post-operative visit.

Plaintiff requested a verdict in the amount of $115,000, based on medical bills of approximately $30,000, past pain and suffering, and future pain and suffering including permanent loss of taste and smell. The jury returned with a defense verdict after five days of trial.

This was a case of disputed liability arising out of a two-vehicle left-hand turn collision which occurred at the intersection of Crenshaw Boulevard and 182^nd in the city of Torrance, California. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant made an unsafe left-hand turn into a Burger King restaurant.

The defense alleged that the plaintiff ran the red light and struck the side of defendant’s vehicle. The crucial issue was the area of impact in relationship to the deposition testimony of the plaintiff. The defense called the Torrance police officer who established the point of impact was in the intersection, as consistent with the defense’s position. The plaintiff also had a suspicious loss of earnings claim.

A three-day jury trial occurred. During the course of the trial, it was pointed out that the plaintiff had inconsistent deposition testimony and a suspicious loss of earnings claim. (There was no expert to establish plaintiff’s loss of earnings claim. Plaintiff requested $16,500 from the jury. After ten minutes of deliberation, the jury returned with a defense verdict.

Plaintiff, age 62, claimed the defendant prosthodontist negligently extracted her remaining 28 teeth, and negligently provided dentures thereafter. In addition, plaintiff claimed fraud, negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress and unfair business practices. Punitive damages were sought.

Plaintiff claimed excruciating and unrelenting pain as well as the inability to chew food from November 16, 2005 through June 30, 2006 when a subsequent treating dentist made new dentures. She continued to suffer pain and functional problems allegedly because of defendant's negligence, even after her new dentures were made and up through the time of trial.

Defendant alleged that she complied with the standard of care and that the dentures provided were immediate healing dentures which often needed to be replaced by long-term permanent dentures once tissue healing and bone resorption occurred. Plaintiff signed a consent form stating that she understood this process.

Defendant's motions for non-suit were granted as to plaintiff's intentional causes of action for fraud and emotional distress, resulting in the punitive damages allegations being stricken. Plaintiff claimed $4,000 in out-of-pocket loss.

The jury returned with a defense verdict on September 15, 2008 after one hour of deliberations. Plaintiff has filed an appeal.

Plaintiff filed California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 998 demands of $999,999 as to the defendant dentist and the defendant dental management company. Defendant filed a California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 998 Offer to Compromise in the amount of $9,999 for each defendant.

Plaintiff suffered an infection of his right hip prosthesis following a dental procedure. Plaintiff claimed that the defendant general dentist failed to properly evaluate him for either pre-medication or post-medication of antibiotics. Plaintiff claimed that had antibiotics been prescribed, his life-threatening infection could have been avoided.

Plaintiff underwent right hip replacement surgery on July 16, 2002. The guidelines promulgated by a joint committee of the American Dental Association and American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons in 1997 (and reiterated in 2003) stated that an individual who had received a joint prosthesis within two years of dental treatment should be classified as an increased risk patient and should be considered for antibiotic prophylaxis when undergoing a higher incidence dental procedure.

The defendant general dentist was aware of the ADA/AAOS guidelines when he performed crown preparations to plaintiff's teeth Nos. 5 and 13 on February 25, 2004. Because the dental procedure was classified as a lower incidence procedure, he determined that no antibiotic prophylaxis was necessary. The defendant dentist also relied upon a 12-year history of having provided similar dental treatment to plaintiff with no significant bleeding. Since the guidelines only required consideration of antibiotics in a situation where a dentist was confronted with both a higher incidence procedure and an increased risk patient, none was given to plaintiff. There was a factual dispute between plaintiff and the defendant dentist as to the amount of bleeding that occurred during the crown preparation procedures.

Plaintiff began feeling sick on February 29, 2004. By March 3, 2004, plaintiff's fever had spiked to 104 degrees, and he was transported to the emergency room at the Veterans' Administration Hospital in West Los Angeles. Plaintiff's hip prosthesis was surgically removed and replaced with a cement spacer. Plaintiff was placed in an intensive care unit and suffered life-threatening renal failure. An incision and drainage procedure was performed on April 22, 2004. Plaintiff was discharged on May 14, 2004, but continued on antibiotics for several months. Plaintiff was confined to a wheelchair, immobile and required 24-hour home care until a replacement prosthesis was surgically placed on September 16, 2004.

The infectious organism was found to be alpha streptococcus. Plaintiff's infectious disease expert claimed that the alpha strep organism most likely entered plaintiff's bloodstream during the subject dental procedure. The defense expert disputed this claim. Plaintiff's dental expert claimed defendant did not properly evaluate plaintiff according to the guidelines and, had he done so, prophylactic antibiotics would have been given. Defendant's dental expert claimed that the guidelines were followed in every respect.

Plaintiff claimed $250,000 in general damages and $200,000 in loss of earnings. Plaintiff's wife claimed $250,000 for loss of consortium. All of plaintiff's medical bills were paid because all treatment was through the VA Hospital.

The binding arbitration was in favor of defendant.

Plaintiff made a claim for uninsured motorist benefits to his insurance company after he was allegedly backed into by a valet parking a vehicle at a local mall.  The plaintiff alleged that the owner of the vehicle was unknown and the valet driver was uninsured at the time of the accident and thus, he was entitled to uninsured motorist benefits through his automobile liability insurance carrier.  Plaintiff sued his insurance carrier for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and unfair business practices.  Mr. Reisinger obtained a defense verdict with regard to all three causes of action on behalf of his client’s insurance company.

Plaintiff alleged that the accident caused an injury to his shoulder, which required surgery and he requested $108,922.37 in Brandt fees.  The plaintiff’s request for Brandt fees was also denied.

Plaintiff claimed substandard root canal therapy on 14 teeth, substandard bridge work, and failure to control plaintiff's periodontal condition caused the loss of five teeth, and the probable loss of plaintiff's remaining teeth. Plaintiff claimed future bone grafting was required, eight implants on the lower arch, and four implants on the maxillary arch with sinus grafting. The cost of treatment was estimated to be $80,000 to $100,000.

The parties waived jury, and the court trial began on February 14, 2008, which was estimated to last approximately 7-10 days. In the morning of the first day of trial, Mr. Kaylor moved orally to bifurcate the statute of limitations issue, which was granted. After two to three hours of testimony, the Judge returned a defense verdict.

Plaintiff, a 56-year-old singer in her church choir, received dental treatment by defendant in September of 2003 consisting of root canal therapy and modifications to an existing bridge. The existing bridge was unsuccessfully adjusted on three or four occasions necessitating the placement of a new bridge. The new bridge was placed in the lower left quadrant on January 15, 2004. Plaintiff alleges the dentist incorrectly seated the bridge and made improper adjustments throughout all four quadrants of her mouth.

Plaintiff was seen by seven subsequent treating dentists. Several of those dentists formulated extensive treatment plans. Plaintiff's retained expert testified she needed a full mouth reconstruction at a cost of $65,000.

Defendant contended he explained all of the treatment options to plaintiff before she attempted to save the wisdom tooth with a root canal. Defendant contended his adjustments were appropriate and the final bridge he placed in that area did not alter plaintiff's bite.

Plaintiff demanded $200,000 in settlement, which was later reduced to $100,000 during trial. Defendant offered $25,000 prior to trial. No further offers were extended by defendant after plaintiff rejected the $25,000 offer. After a week-long trial, the jury deliberated for three hours before returning a verdict in defendant's favor.

Plaintiff, age 49, went to the defendant general dentist because of pain to tooth No. 6 (upper right cuspid). A root canal was performed to tooth No. 6 on April 29, 2005. Because plaintiff continued having pain to No. 6, the defendant did an apical incise and drain procedure on June 2, 2005. No drainage or sign of infection was found which would have explained plaintiff's continued pain.

Plaintiff claimed that during the second apical procedure by defendant, she felt a shooting electric-type sensation. From that point forward, she experienced extreme and unrelenting facial pain as well as a diminished corneal reflex and other neurologic deficits.

Plaintiff was seen by a subsequent endodontist on July 26, 2005 and he removed a separated file from tooth No. 7 and redid a root canal to tooth No. 7 which had been poorly done in Iran.

Plaintiff's endodontist referred plaintiff to pain management specialist Steven Graff-Radford, D.D.S., on July 21, 2005. Dr. Graff-Radford found all cranial nerves intact and diagnosed myofascial pain emanating from plaintiff's TMJ.

Plaintiff was later seen at UCLA on September 23, 2005, where she underwent two apicoectomies to teeth Nos. 6 and 7 without relief of pain.

Plaintiff returned to Dr. Graff-Radford on September 26, 2005, at which time TMJ pain had improved and plaintiff was diagnosed with trigemenal deafferentation, most likely as a result of the apicoectomies performed at UCLA.

Plaintiff went on to treat with approximately 20 to 30 other health care practitioners to alleviate her pain. Two of three specialists recommended a three-part program of physical therapy, vocational rehabilitation, and psychotherapy. If this program failed, plaintiff would need to undergo gamma knife surgery to her brain.

Plaintiff claimed unrelenting, excruciating pain to the right side of her face, forehead, lips, mouth, tongue, neck and shoulder. Plaintiff claimed past medical specials of $35,000; future estimated medical specials of $350,000; past lost earnings of $60,000; and unspecified future loss of earnings.

Plaintiff filed a C.C.P. § 998 offer to compromise in the amount of $1,500,000. This demand was reduced to $900,000 on the first day of trial. Defendant offered $9,999.

After deliberating for two-and-a-half hours, the jury returned with a defense verdict. The jury poll was 11-1. Trial lasted eight days.

Mr. Reisinger was asked to step in and try this rear-end automobile accident case which had been handled previously by another defense firm. The original defense firm served a C.C.P. Section 998 Offer to Compromise on Plaintiff for the policy limit of $15,000. Plaintiff, a 60 year old vice president of a major retail corporation, rejected the offer to compromise and argued that Mr. Reisinger's client was 100% liable for the rear-end accident, and that she injured both her neck and low back in the incident. Further, the Plaintiff's orthopedic treating doctor testified at trial that the Plaintiff suffered a disc protrusion at L4-5 due to the accident and that she will have pain in her low back for the rest of her life. By the time trial commenced the Plaintiff had undergone three epidural injections in her low back and her medical expenses totaled over $25,000.

Mr. Reisinger argued that the vehicle that turned in front of Plaintiff forcing her to stop abruptly, was partially at fault for the accident and the jury agreed and found 10% liability on that unknown party. With regard to damages, Plaintiff's counsel asked the jury to award all of the Plaintiff's medical specials which were approximately $25,000 and award her approximately $500,000 for pain and suffering since she would continue to have low back pain for the rest of her life according to her orthopedic surgeon. Mr. Reisinger asked the jury to award the Plaintiff only the medical expenses associated with her neck treatment for three months following the accident as well as only three months of pain and suffering. As a result, Mr. Reisinger asked the jury to award the Plaintiff a total of $6,850.

After deliberating for several hours, the jury awarded the Plaintiff a grand total of $6,850 as requested by defense counsel. Mr. Reisinger has now filed a Cost Memorandum on behalf of his client in the amount of $31,845 due to the fact that the Plaintiff did not accept the C.C.P. Section 998 Offer to Compromise and therefore, this case will result in a net award to his client of $24,995.

After trial, the jury confirmed their 12-0 verdict in this matter by indicating that they did not believe that the Plaintiff injured her low back in this rear-end accident.

The Breen case was set for trial on May 14, 2007, in the Beverly Hills Superior Court before Judge Lisa Hart Cole. Trial was expected to last two weeks.

Plaintiff alleged that the insured's failure to prescribe antibiotics prior to dental treatment led to an infection of her breast implants. Plaintiff had four subsequent surgeries, resulting in extreme scarring and disfigurement. The demand was $350,000, reduced to $150,000 prior to trial. Defendant offered $50,000.

On the first day of trial, motions in limine were heard by the Judge. One was to preclude plaintiff's experts' testimony on causation. After oral argument, trial was continued for one week to allow Evidence Code § 402 hearings as to the experts' testimony. Cross-examination by Mr. Kaylor of plaintiff's main expert resulted in the case being dismissed.

Plaintiffs sued their homeowner insurance carrier over the handling of a water damage claim that ultimately developed into mold. Plaintiffs contended that defendant insurance company was slow to investigate the extent of the water damage and hired an inferior contractor to dry down the home which resulted in mold. Plaintiffs further contended that once the mold developed, the insurance company was slow to respond to investigate the mold and that the plaintiffs had to hire their own hygienist who verified the existence of the mold. Plaintiffs further contended that following mold remediation, the defendant insurance company undervalued the cost of restoration of the home and failed to adequately compensate the plaintiffs for loss of use expenses and storage of the contents. Defendants claimed that they acted appropriately and promptly at all times. Once mold was discovered by the plaintiffs' hygienist the insurance company stepped up and fully covered all damages including mold remediation, additional living expenses and storage of contents. Further, the insurance company accurately evaluated the cost of repair to the home. 

The trial lasted 6 weeks. Prior to the trial, the plaintiffs' demand was $7,000,000 and the defendant made a 998 Statutory Offer to Compromise of $251,000. The jury awarded the plaintiffs $150,000. However, because the award was less than the defendant's offer, defendant was awarded costs of over $300,000 which resulted in a net verdict in favor of the defendant of $150,000.

Plaintiff underwent surgeries on her right wrist and right middle finger two months before staying