On Aug. 8, 2017, plaintiff Joyleen Qu, 8, underwent dental surgery to remove mesiodens tooth No. 59, an extra (or supernumerary) accessory tooth located next to tooth No. 9, a central incisor. Due to the tooth being impacted, Dr. Andre Guerrero, an oral surgeon, extracted the tooth at Inland Institute, in Upland. After the surgery, it was discovered that tooth No. 10 had been removed. Geng Qu, acting as Joyleen’s guardian ad litem, sued Guerrero and the operator of Inland Institute, David H. Gilbert, DDS, MS, MBA Inc. The lawsuit alleged that Guerrero was negligent in the performance of the tooth extraction and in his failure to obtain Joyleen’s informed consent. The lawsuit also alleged that Guerrero’s negligence constituted medical malpractice and medical battery and that David H. Gilbert, DDS, MS, MBA Inc. was liable for Guerrero’s actions. David H. Gilbert, DDS, MS, MBA Inc. was ultimately dismissed from the case. Plaintiff’s counsel argued that Guerrero failed to use the skill and care that a reasonable health care provider would have used in similar circumstances. Counsel contended that Guerrero failed to correctly identify mesiodens tooth No. 59 and, instead, removed tooth No. 10, a healthy adult tooth. Counsel argued that the extraction was a simple surgery and that Guerrero should have known his exact location during the procedure. Plaintiff’s counsel further argued that Guerrero failed to inform Joyleen about the difficulty of the surgery or that there was a possibility of the wrong tooth being extracted. The plaintiff’s prosthodontic and oral surgery experts also opined that Guerrero was negligent. Defense counsel argued that Guerrero was not negligent and that it was a difficult surgery, as both tooth No. 59 and tooth No. 10 were impacted and located behind bone. Counsel also argued that it was not below the standard of care for Guerrero to become disoriented due to the difficult surgery. Defense counsel filed a motion for nonsuit as to the claim of medical battery. The defense’s motion was ultimately granted, as the court found there was no evidence of intent., Joyleen claimed she lost tooth No. 10, a health adult tooth, and that as a result, she will require orthodontics and a lifetime of implants to replace the tooth, She claimed that her dental costs will amount to $103,000 over her lifetime from age 11, when she started orthodontics, onward. She also claimed that she will require multiple replacements of implants, which would be initially placed at around age 21, and then require subsequent replacements over her lifetime. Joyleen sought recovery of $8,000 past medical costs for her orthodontic treatment and $95,000 in future medical costs for her ongoing treatment. She also sought recovery of damages for her past and future pain and suffering. Defense counsel argued that Joyleen’s treatment plan was unreasonable and that, due to the crowding of her teeth, Joyleen would have required orthodontic treatment regardless. Counsel contended that as a result, the reasonable value for Joyleen’s further dental treatment was no more than $19,800.