On March 5, 2009, plaintiff Ingrid Valdez, 40, a recently married homemaker, underwent a dental procedure with Sherri Worth, D.D.S., at her Newport Beach office, to aesthetically correct a gummy smile with her upper anterior teeth, and to replace a chipped composite filling on her upper front tooth. Worth advised Valdez, during a consultation, that to achieve a cosmetic and functional result, she should also restore her lower teeth with veneers. During the procedure, Worth drilled 20 of Valdez’s teeth in order to place veneers and crowns, and drilled two teeth for a 3-unit fixed bridge. Worth also performed laser surgery to Valdez’s upper gums to heighten her gummy smile. Valdez claimed that as a result of Worth’s treatment, she required subsequent corrective care to replace Worth’s 23 tooth restorations. She also claimed the subsequent care required crown lengthening periodontal surgery and eight root canals, as well as future replacement of her lower anterior veneers every 10 years. Valdez sued Worth, alleging dental malpractice. The parties stipulated to a binding arbitration when no court room was available on trial day. Plaintiffs’ counsel contended that during the 2.4 hours that Valdez was under IV sedation, Worth could not reasonably prepare, or temporize, 23 units of crowns, veneers and a bridge. He also contended that Worth overdiagnosed the need for full mouth veneers, crowns, and bridges, and subsequently overtreated the patient. Plaintiffs’ counsel argued that in order to treat Valdez’s gummy smile, Valdez, instead, needed to have her smile line raised to a higher level and required periodontal crown lengthening surgery to remove bone and gum tissue. Plaintiffs’ counsel further claimed that the laser surgery performed by Worth did not change Valdez’s bone position, which laser gum recontouring could not and did not achieve. Valdez claimed that after the laser surgery, her gums grew back to their previous and original biological width position, causing biological width violation and resulting in chronic, painful, inflamed, red and swollen gums. Thus, plaintiffs’ counsel argued that non-invasive teeth bleaching and Invisalign orthodontics should have been offered as an option, rather than invasive lower anterior veneers, which now require replacements every ten years. In addition, plaintiffs’ counsel contended that Worth spilled Coke on Valdez’s treatment records, which obfuscated a questioned document examination, and that the dentist unnecessarily discarded her models due to a muddy flood in her home storage area, rather than washing off the mud and rescuing the models. Worth claimed that she strived for perfection in her treatment of Valdez, achieved esthetic perfection, and met the standard of care. The defense’s expert prosthodontist also agreed with Worth’s claims. Defense counsel argued that Valdez’s inflamed gums were due to her inadequate oral hygiene, and not due to biological width invasion. The defense’s expert endodontist opined that Worth complied with the standard of care and further testified that root canals are a known risk of crown drilling preparations., Valdez’s subsequent care consisted of the replacement of Worth’s overcontoured crowns with open unsealed crown margins, as well as eight root canals and crown lengthening surgery to correct biological width invasion of the anterior veneers. She claimed that Worth placed veneer margins too deep on the day of the laser surgery, rather than waiting for the gums to heal. Thus, she claimed she will require replacement of her lower anterior veneers every 10 years due to Worth’s unnecessary overtreatment. Valdez claimed that she now experiences diminished anterior teeth chewing power and sensitivity when kissing. She also claimed her gummy smile was corrected with the subsequent crown lengthening surgery. Thus, Valdez sought recovery of damages consisting of $112,500 in past dental costs, and $25,000 in future dental costs for her anterior veneer replacements every 10 years. Her husband, Barry, presented a derivative claim, seeking recovery of $150,000 for his loss of consortium. Defense counsel argued that after replacement of her restorations and the crown lengthening surgery, Valdez experienced the same gingival/periodontal inflammation, proving that the plaintiff was peculiarly susceptible to any type of dental restoration.