The plaintiff was a 49-year-old veteran who suffered a debilitating stroke after leaving the office of an oral surgery resident employed by the veterans‘ administration. The plaintiff brought suit against the United States alleging that the veterans‘ administration oral surgeon committed dental malpractice by failing to halt the tooth extraction when the plaintiff’s blood pressure dropped sharply several times. The plaintiff also contended that the oral surgeon was negligent in allowing the plaintiff to drive home alone and failing to adequately monitor him after the procedure. The defendant maintained that its oral surgeon met the required standard of care and that the plaintiff’s stroke was unrelated to the tooth extraction performed.

The plaintiff, who had served in the United States Marines, underwent extraction of eight teeth at the defendant’s Veteran‘s Administration Medical Center in Philadelphia in 2007 under local anesthesia. The plaintiff contended that he suffered four significant drops in blood pressure during the procedure, dropping as low as 60/30 and accompanied by sweating, dizziness and syncope or near syncopal episodes. The plaintiff left the defendant’s dental office and was driving home alone when he suffered a stroke. He was discovered in his vehicle several hours later.

The plaintiff’s oral surgery expert testified that the defendant’s oral surgeon deviated from the standard of care which required that the dental procedure be stopped and that the plaintiff be placed under medical observation in light of the multiple drops in his blood pressure. This expert placed under medical observation in light of the multiple drops in his blood pressure. This expert opined that the defendant’s oral surgeon should have stopped the tooth extractions following the plaintiff’s first episode of hypotension and should have placed him under medical observation, not allowed him to drive home alone.

The plaintiff contended that the drops in blood pressure may have allowed blood clots to form and the low blood pressure then reduced or prevented emboli washout; thereby increasing the risk that the clot would cause a stroke. Also, the plaintiff’s experts testified that the drops in blood pressure signaled that the plaintiff’s condition was unstable and that he required monitoring. Had the plaintiff been monitored and treated immediately, the stroke would have resulted in less damage, according to the plaintiff’s claims.

The plaintiff was diagnosed with severe and permanent brain damage as a result of the stroke. He requires a three-point cane to ambulate and has a severe speech impediment. The plaintiff’s doctors reported that he is currently functioning with an IQ of 68 and will require attendant care for the remainder of his life. The plaintiff was employed as an electronic calibrations specialist prior to the stroke.

The defendant maintained that the plaintiff’s stroke was unrelated to the dental procedures performed. The defendant’s expert oral surgeon testified that such procedures often result in blood pressure drops and that drops in blood pressure do not mandate halting the extraction procedure. The defense also contended that the plaintiff recovered from the temporary drops in blood pressure and there was no reason to call for a consult or additional medical observation.

The case was tried as a bench trial, per the Federal Tort Claims Act, with a finding for the plaintiff in the amount of $ 17,426,000. The award included $ 3,326,000 in past medical/future medical and life care; $ 1,100,000 in past and future loss of earnings; $ 10,000,000 in past and future pain and suffering and $ 3,000,000 to the plaintiff’s wife for her loss of consortium claim. Post-trial motions are pending.

Philadelphia VA Medical Malpractice Information