On Feb. 22, 2010, plaintiff Michelle Jensen, a full-time insurance biller and receptionist in her in her 30s, approached her boss, Kenneth Krauss, D.D.S., with her complaints of intermittent hot and cold sensitivity in the area of tooth #18, where a filling became dislodged in November 2009. Krauss subsequently evaluated her and attempted to restore tooth #18 with a crown. However, when he discovered that there was too much decay to do so, Krauss recommended to Jensen that both tooth #18 and tooth #17 be extracted. After the local anesthetic wore off, Jensen experienced pain and numbness. However, when the pain resolved, the numbness persisted. Jensen claimed that it was discovered that she had suffered an injury to the 5th cranial nerve along the distribution of the inferior alveolar nerve, and that this injury was a result of the extractions. Subsequently, Jensen’s employment with Krauss, which she stared in December 2008, ended. Jensen sued Krauss; his office, Kenneth W. Krauss, D.D.S. Inc.; and the office’s operator, Bakersfield Smile Design. She alleged that the defendants failed to properly perform the extractions and failed to obtain her informed consent to extract tooth #17. Thus, she alleged that these failures constituted dental malpractice. Jensen also asserted a number of employment-related claims, which were resolved prior to the trial. Jensen denied giving Krauss consent regarding the extraction of tooth #17. She also claimed that Krauss’ negligent treatment caused nerve damage. Defense counsel argued that Jensen was barred from bringing a civil suit against Krauss, his office and/or Bakersfield Smile Design since she received the treatment as a benefit of her employment with Krauss. Thus, counsel asserted California Labor Code § 3600 (a)(2) as an affirmative defense, contending that a worker’s compensation claim was Jensen’s exclusive remedy. Jensen denied receiving the dental treatment as a benefit of her employment. The matter was subsequently bifurcated and a bench trial followed on the affirmative defense claim. According to defense counsel, the defendants were not going to contest liability if the affirmative defense claim did not succeed., The trial was bifurcated. Damages were not before the court. Jensen’s pain eventually went away the extractions on Feb. 22, 2010, but she claimed the the numbness continued on the lower, left side of her jaw from the temporomandibular joint, to the midpoint of her chin and lip. On March 15, 2010, she was seen by a periodontist, who determined that because the area was described as numb, it was obvious that Jensen had an injury to the fifth cranial nerve, along the distribution of the inferior alveolar nerve. As a result, Jensen was told that the injury was likely permanent and that there was nothing that could be done. Thus, Jensen claimed that the numbness persists. Jensen ultimately left her employment with Krauss and currently works at a local hospital.