On Nov. 11, 2004, plaintiff Elina Vue, 15, a student, first treated with Dr. Su Nhia Ying Vang, a dentist, at his practice at Brite Care Dental on East Shields Avenue near Millbrook Avenue. During the visit, Vang took a full mouth set of 18 periapical X-rays. Elina then saw Vang’s associate dentist on May 9, 2005, for a tooth build up and crown, which was unsuccessful. However, the associate dentist did not review any of the X-rays that day. Vang then treated tooth #19 with root canal therapy and a crown, which was completed by June 2005. At that time, Vang noted tooth #18 had evidence of an endodontic lesion and tooth mobility. As a result, he prescribed antibiotics and scheduled Elina to return on July 5, 2005, for a follow up evaluation, but she did not return until Jan. 3, 2006. During the seven month absence, Elina, her family and friends noted that Elina had developed obvious facial swelling and advised her to seek medical assistance, but she declined. Elina was finally taken by her mother to Vang in January 2006, after tooth #18 fell out and the swelling was interfering with Elina’s eating. Vang examined Elina and recommended that Elina see an oral surgeon within nine days, but that Elina’s mother refused. When Elina’s mother finally did agree to the referral, she also sought additional “second opinions” until she finally agreed to have Elina see the oral surgeon that Vang referred her to, Jerry Sorensen, D.D.S. However, when Elina presented to Sorensen for an evaluation and a biopsy on Feb. 23, 2006, Elina falsely claimed she was pregnant in order to avoid treatment that day. After a negative pregnancy test, the biopsy was eventually done on April 13, 2006. The pathology ultimately revealed pyogenic granuloma, an infection, but it was undisputed that the diagnosis was incomplete because the tissue taken in the biopsy was not complete. As a result, Sorensen advised Vang that he would follow up with Elina for her infection. In June 2006, a second biopsy was performed and Elina was diagnosed with an odontogenic myxoma, a slow-growing benign tumor, which Sorensen ultimately removed along with Elina’s surrounding jaw. Elina sued Vang and Brite Care Dental for dental malpractice. Elina claimed that despite making more than a dozen visits to Vang’s practice, where Vang took multiple X-rays, including several in connection with the root canal therapy of tooth #19 and the crown on #18; filled several cavities; did a root canal; and gave her antibiotics and painkillers, Vang failed to detect a growing tumor in her jaw until January 2006, when she was 17. Thus, Elina contended that Vang failed to detect the tumor from the original X-rays taken in November 2004, as well as from the subsequent X-rays; failed to detect the tumor during the subsequent treatments; and failed to refer her to a specialist in a timely manner. Vang contended that Elina was seen for seven months of treatment from November 2004 until June 2005, after which Elina failed to return for follow-up care for seven months because, in Elina’s words, she was young, busy with school and it didn’t hurt. Vang also claimed that Elina chose not to return for the July 2005 appointment. Thus, defense counsel contended that Vang treated Elina properly; that there were no clinical signs or symptoms of a tumor, given Elina’s age and presentation; and that all treatment visits were of a problem-focused nature until June 2005, when Vang thought Elina had an endodontic lesion and recommended follow-up care in July 2005. Counsel also contended that once Elina presented with an obvious infection, bone loss and loss of teeth #18 and #19, Vang made a prompt referral to the oral surgeon, but that Elina’s mother wanted to wait to see if the antibiotics worked. Defense counsel noted that unbeknownst to Elina’s treating physician and oral surgeon, Sorensen, Elina’s mother sought subsequent opinions from six doctors, including four oral surgeons and two medical doctors. Counsel contended that all oral surgeons advised Elina’s mother that the tumor was serious, and that removal of the tumor and surrounding jaw were necessary, but delayed a second, more complete biopsy and treatment until June 2006., On June 17, 2006, the tumor was removed, along with Elina’s lower, left mandible from tooth #22, the left canine, to the condyle. During the surgical removal, approximately one-third of the mandible was removed from the point of the chin up to and including her left condyle, and a metal bar was inserted. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that Elina will require one major surgery by a microvascular surgeon to replace the bar by harvesting her left fibula. Counsel contended that Elina may also require three additional minor surgeries over her lifetime. Elina claimed she suffers numbness to the left side of her lips and lower left jaw. She also claimed that her face is disfigured and asymmetrical, and that she suffers from depression, severe emotional distress and post-traumatic stress disorder from the events. As a result, she seeks treatment with a psychologist and a psychiatrist. Elina has also taken approximately one year off from school/work. Defense counsel noted that Elina treats intermittently with her psychologist, who testified that he diagnosed Elina with depression despite the fact that her Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory I-II results showed exaggeration and no depression. The psychologist also testified that Elina tended to return to see him only when the case was gearing up for trial, noting that there were eight trail continuances and one prior trial. Thus, Elina’s treating psychologist could not corroborate the depression diagnosis with his testing and he testified that Elina’s PTSD was based on her feeling like she was held down in the dental chair, not related to her jaw condition. Defense counsel noted that Elina was off from work for one year, from 2011 until 2012, when she developed necrotizing fasciitis in her right, dominant arm/hand after punching her boyfriend in the mouth at a party at her house in April 2011.