Skip to main content

Nerve is damaged in extraction, and plaintiff says the dentist took out the wrong tooth.

 

The Case

  • Case Name: Simpson v. Lee, DDS
  • Court and Case Number: Los Angeles Superior Court / 21STCV30716
  • Date of Verdict or Judgment: Wednesday, August 06, 2025
  • Date Action was Filed: Thursday, August 19, 2021
  • Type of Case: Dental Malpractice
  • Judge or Arbitrator(s): Hon. Lauren A.R. Lofton
  • Plaintiffs:
    Lamesha Simpson
  • Defendants:
    Hanfu Lee, D.D.S
  • Type of Result: Jury Verdict

The Result

  • Gross Verdict or Award: $11,697,870
  • Net Verdict or Award: $11,697,870
  • Economic Damages:$446,745
  • Non-Economic Damages:$11,251,125
  • Trial or Arbitration Time: 10 days
  • Jury Deliberation Time: 6-7 hours

The Attorneys

  • Attorney for the Plaintiff:

    Levy Law Firm by Dane Levy, Seal Beach.

    Commerce Law Group by Sassan Mackay, Fullerton.

  • Attorney for the Defendant:

    The Goldman Law Firm by Ronald P. Goldman and Andrew J. Goldman, Belvedere Tiburon.

The Experts

  • Plaintiff’s Medical Expert(s):

    Gary Wyatt, DDS, oral surgery.

    Marisa Chang, M.D., neurology.

    Mohammed Husain, DDS, dental radiology.

  • Mark Crane, DDS, M.D., oral surgery. 
  • Sanjay M. Mallya, B.D.S., M.D.S., Ph.D., dental radiology.

Facts and Background

  • Facts and Background:Defendant, a general dentist, on September 3, 2022, extracted plaintiff's wisdom tooth #17, causing permanent nerve damage. Plaintiff was 38 years old at the time of her tooth extraction. The defendant had been plaintiff's general dentist since 2006.
  • Plaintiff's Contentions:That defendant should not have extracted plaintiff's wisdom tooth #17 as plaintiff's complaint was to her tooth #18, the tooth in front of tooth #17.
  • Defendant's Contentions:That defendant's conduct was within the standard of care.

Injuries and Other Damages

  • Physical Injuries claimed by Plaintiff:Permanent inferior alveolar nerve damage and ongoing, permanent pain and suffering; dysesthesia consistent with spinally-mediated central sensitization, which requires monitoring by a neurologist.

Demands and Offers

  • Plaintiff §998 Demand: $394,000
  • Defendant §998 Offer: $150,000

Additional Notes

Insurer: The Dentists Insurance Company (TDIC)

Disclaimer

This is not an official court document. While the publisher believes the information to be accurate, the publisher does not guarantee it and the reader is advised not to rely upon it without consulting the official court documents or the attorneys of record in this matter who are listed above.

Copyright © 2026 by Neubauer & Associates, Inc. All rights reserved.

Subscribe Today
Access All the Case Details Behind Every Verdict

JuryVerdictAlert.com provides limited case details for public viewing so you can see the scope of our coverage. However, access to complete case summaries, full fact patterns, damages breakdowns, attorney and expert information, and advanced search features is reserved for subscribers.

To review the full version of each verdict in our database you’ll need an active subscription to JuryVerdictAlert.com.