On June 11, 2009, plaintiff Maryjane Perez Grose, 47, an administrative assistant and realtor, went to the office of Delta Bay Dental and was initially seen by Todd Wedeking, D.D.S., who diagnosed her with generalized moderate to severe periodontal disease and a severely mobile tooth. Among the treatment options, Wedeking recommended extraction of tooth #18 and referred Perez Grose to his partner, Tane Rontal, D.D.S. On June 15, 2009, Perez Grose presented to Rontal to have a tooth extracted. The following day, Perez Grose began experiencing pain and swelling in the area of the extraction. She ultimately returned to Rontal on June 18, 2009, and was prescribed antibiotics to treat a presumed infection after Rontal noticed swelling at the extraction site and cheek area. Perez Grose was also advised that there was a risk that the infection might extend down to the neck and that if that occurred, she should go to the emergency room. Later that day, on June 18, 2009, Perez Grose called Rontal to report that she was experiencing swelling in her chin. The next morning Perez Grose experienced increased swelling and pain, and went to the emergency room at approximately 6 a.m. Perez Grose saw an oral surgeon at 12:40 p.m., was diagnosed with a submandibular abscess, and underwent an incision and drainage surgery at 6 p.m. Perez Grose sued Wedeking, Rontal and their corporation, Delta Bay Dental Group. She alleged that the defendants failed to timely diagnose and treat her infection, and that their failure constituted dental malpractice. Perez Grose claimed that she initially presented to Dental Bay with complaints of a tooth ache that she had for two weeks, as well as swelling. She contended that her pain and swelling was a sign of an infection, and that antibiotics would have prevented the submandibular abscess and subsequent surgery. The plaintiff’s oral surgery also testified that the mere fact that Perez Grose complained of swelling should have been enough to presume that she had an infection. Thus, Perez Grose claimed that she should have been prescribed antibiotics either when she first treated with Wedeking or when she presented to Rontal four days later. Wedeking testified that there were no signs of an infection at the time he examined Peres Grose, so no antibiotics were indicated. He was ultimately dismissed from the case after settling with Perez Grose for a waiver of costs. Defense counsel contended that when Perez Grose originally called Dental Bay to schedule her first appointment there, she told the receptionist that she was making an appointment for a “cleaning and exam,” and that she had no swelling or pain at that time. Counsel also noted that in response to the question on the patient information sheet about what brought her to the office, Perez Grose wrote that she had a tooth ache for two years. However, Perez Grose claimed that she misunderstood the question and thought it was asking when her last appointment was, even though defense counsel pointed out that the plaintiff’s last dentist appointment was almost five years prior. Defense counsel contended that it was generally agreed by the experts that swelling in the area of a tooth, not simply generalized puffy gums from gingivitis, is a sign of infection, which would be an indication for giving antibiotics when extracting a tooth. The defense’s experts also opined that unless the patient shows signs of an infection, such as swelling, drainage and fever, antibiotics are not indicated for the extraction of a tooth because the risks of antibiotics are too great and the medical literature does not support giving them as prophylaxis. Rontal claimed there was no evidence of an infection at the time of the extraction. Defense counsel contended that, in this case, when Perez Grose first presented to Dental Bay, her tooth was found to be loose and banging on the bone and soft tissue every time she bit down. Thus, counsel contended that Perez Grose’s pain was mechanical in nature, not from an infection, and that pain alone is not an indication for antibiotics. Defense counsel further argued that since Perez Grose had no signs or symptoms of an infection when she presented to Wedeking on June 11, 2009, or at the time of the extraction on June 15, 2009, antibiotics were not indicated until June 18, 2009, when swelling was diagnosed at the extraction site and some in the cheek area. Counsel contended that Rontal subsequently gave Perez Grose two tabs of Clindamycin in the office at that time and prescribed her additional antibiotics. As a result, counsel argued that Rontal’s treatment of Perez Grose did not depart from the standard of care., Perez Grose reported swelling at the extraction site and cheek area on June 18, 2009, and was subsequently prescribed antibiotics. She then called Rontal back later that day and reported swelling in her chin. The next morning, Perez Grose went to an emergency room at approximately 6 a.m. with complaints of increased swelling and pain, and was seen by an oral surgeon at 12:40 p.m. She was ultimately diagnosed with a submandibular abscess, and underwent an incision and drainage surgery to treat at 6 p.m. She was kept in the Intensive Care Unit overnight and was discharged from the hospital on June 21, 2009. Perez Grose then followed up with an oral surgeon, and the Penrose drains were removed within four days. Perez Grose claimed that she was left with minor residual scars as a result of the drainage surgeries. Thus, she claimed $58,000 in past medical costs, which included $3,000 paid out-of-pocket, and $75,000 to $125,000 in damages for her pain and suffering. Defense counsel did not dispute the extent of Perez Grose’s medical specials.