On Nov. 2, 2010, plaintiff Carlos Pineiro, 52, a restaurant managing consultant, presented to Russell Moon, D.D.S., at his office in Santa Monica to undergo a root canal. Pineiro initially presented to Moon on Oct. 18, 2010, during which Moon noted a loose bridge from tooth number 2 to tooth number 5, causing Pineiro discomfort. As a result, Moon recemented the bridge while also removing decay from tooth number 5. He also told Pineiro that a root canal at tooth number 5 might be needed as well. After experiencing continuing pain, Pineiro returned to the office on Nov. 2, 2010, and Moon began a root canal on tooth number 5, removing more decay and filing down the canals. However, Pineiro claimed he continued to experience pain and swelling over the following weekend and went to an emergency room, where he was prescribed antibiotics and told to follow up with a dentist. Pineiro eventually reached Moon by phone and was told to come to the office on Monday. As a result, Pineiro presented to Moon on Nov. 8, 2010, and was told he had to wait for the swelling to go down before the root canal could be completed. Pineiro ultimately went on to treat with a new dentist and had tooth number 5 extracted due to an infection. He currently requires a new bridge for the gap in his teeth. Pineiro sued Moon, alleging dental malpractice. Pineiro claimed that Moon negligently performed the root canal on Nov. 2, 2010, in that the dentist overfilled one canal and underfilled the other, causing the subsequent infection and eventual extraction. He alleged that when he continued to experience pain and swelling over the weekend following the root canal, he eventually had to go to an emergency room because he wasn’t able to get in touch with Moon. He also alleged that when he did reach Moon by phone, after several missed calls, he was told to come to the office on Monday, but that when he presented on Nov. 8, 2010, Moon only told him that he had to wait for the swelling to go down before completing the root canal. Pineiro claimed that as a result, he became frustrated with Moon’s treatment and did not return to his office and ultimately went to a new dentist, who performed a tooth extraction due to the infection. Moon, who has since been rendered a quadriplegic and stopped practicing dentistry, claimed that while the overfill/underfill was not ideal, it was within the standard of care. He also claimed that Pineiro’s credibility was an issue because Pineiro actually returned for two more appointments to finish the root canal after the exam on Nov. 8, 2010, but then never returned thereafter. Thus, defense counsel presented treatment records showing that Pineiro had come in to finish the root canal with Moon on November 9 and November 12, even though Pineiro claimed that he stopped treating with Moon after the November 8 visit. In response, Pineiro claimed that Moon doctored the treatment records in question, and maintained that he did not come to Moon’s office on the dates noted on the alleged records., Pineiro suffered an infection, ultimately requiring the extraction of tooth number 5. He claimed he now requires a bridge consisting of three implants for the gap in his teeth, as well as a sinus augmentation, at a cost of $25,000. He also claimed that he has not been able to return to work as a restaurant manager due to his physical appearance based on his missing teeth. Thus, Pineiro sought recovery of an unspecified amount of damages for his pain and suffering, and in excess of $100,000 for his lost earnings. Defense counsel argued that Pineiro should have had the root canal redone, which had a 90-percent success rate and would have saved his tooth. Counsel further argued that Pineiro has the option to purchase a removable, partial denture, which would only cost $2,400.