Dental malpractice: Implants said to be useless. $175,000. Los Angeles County.


Patient says dentist was negligent in placement of implants; that they would not support a fixed prosthesis.

The Case

  • Case Name: Edik Abgaryan v. Dabbagh Kevork, D.D.S
  • Court and Case Number: Binding arbitration.
  • Date of Verdict or Judgment: Thursday, November 15, 2018
  • Date of Arbitration Award : Thursday, November 15, 2018
  • Date Action was Filed: Wednesday, April 10, 2013
  • Type of Case: Dental Malpractice
  • Judge or Arbitrator(s): Timothy J. Corcoran, Esq.
  • Plaintiffs:
    Edik Abgaryan, 52.
  • Defendants:
    Dabbagh Kevork, D.D.S.
  • Type of Result: Arbitration Award

The Result

  • Gross Verdict or Award: $175,000
  • Net Verdict or Award: $175,000
  • Economic Damages:


  • Non-Economic Damages:


  • Trial or Arbitration Time: 3 days.

The Attorneys

  • Attorney for the Plaintiff:

    Berberian Ain LLP by Richard Berberian, Glendale.

  • Attorney for the Defendant:

    Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP by Vincent D'Angelo, Los Angeles.

The Experts

  • Plaintiff’s Medical Expert(s):

    Dennis Smiler, D.D.S.

  • Defendant's Medical Expert(s):

    J. Thomas Chess, D.D.S.

Facts and Background

  • Facts and Background:

    Claimant was 52 years old when he sought treatment from the respondent for the placement of implants in his upper jaw. Respondent extracted claimant's upper teeth, and placed seven implants. 

  • Plaintiff's Contentions:

    That the implants were placed negligently and as a result, rendered them useless for a fixed prosthesis which is what claimant had sought from the respondent.

    Respondent failed to have a coherent treatment plan, did not make use of a CT scan taken prior to surgery, and placed implants that could not accommodate a fixed prosthesis.The positioning of the implants did not coincide with the accepted remedies of where implants should be placed – the distance between implants were insufficient and they were placed according to bone availability without consideration of where the implants should be placed to support the aesthetics and function of the prosthesis. This not only resulted in implants that were too close, but also at unacceptable angles. Respondent therefore left claimant in a state that would not allow for either a fixed or removable prosthesis resulting in absolutely no teeth in his upper jaw for an extended period of time. The implants needed to be surgically removed, with new, proper placement of implants. This process would take approximately one year.

  • Defendant's Contentions:

    Respondent's care and treatment was within the standard of care and did not cause claimant any injury or damage. Claimant was unreasonable and abandoned respondent's treatment plan before the planned work could be completed and he also failed to mitigate his damages.

Demands and Offers

  • Plaintiff §998 Demand: $174,999.99

Additional Notes

Claimant's §998 demand of $174,999.99 resulted in the recovery of CCP §1033.5 costs in the amount of $14,506.15 in addition to the $175,000.00 award.