Gilmore vs. Kleronomos
Time and time again, we are told to go to the dentist. Yet, this new case out of Cook County, Illinois might make you pause before you make another appointment. The plaintiff in this suit alleges that she actually got hurt from the care of her dentist and in the next few sections we lay out why she thinks this is the case.
Filed: June 10, 2016
Jurisdiction: Circuit Court of Illinois, Cook County
Category: Medical Malpractice; Dentistry
Plaintiff: Lucy Gilmore
Defendants: Steve Kleronomos, D.D.S.; A&W Dental Associates
In June of 2016, Lucy Gilmore filed suit against her dentist, Steve Kleronomos, and the company he represented, A&W Dental Associates. In her complaint, she states that she went to him for care on June 24, 2014 and he performed a dental composite procedure. Additionally, he proscribed and utilized Novocain as well as Lidocaine while in the performance of the composite. A few days later, June 26, 2014 to be exact, Gilmore returned to his office and received additional care and attention. It was on this day that she began to experience a number of symptoms including allergic reactions, bumps, irritated skin, and rashes across her body. In her opinion, these injuries occurred due to the substandard care that he provided and she subsequently brought suit against him and the company he worked with.
Claims And Damages:
Gilmore’s lawsuit against her dentist is for medical malpractice. If successful, this would mean that he did not provide the quality of care that similar doctors would in similar circumstances. Her lawsuit against the company he works with is also one for medical malpractice and arises because of the principal-agency relationship it has with Kleronomos. Thus, the claims she levels against both defendants are similar and include the following points: they did not properly complete the dental composite; they did not properly give her Novocain or Lidocaine; they did not properly examine her before discharging her on both visits; they did not properly notice Gilmore’s symptoms; and they did not properly train or supervise their employees or agents.
Due to these events, Gilmore claims that she suffered numerous damages like these:
- Long-term disfigurement
- Short-term pain including an allergic reaction
- Medical bills including hospitalization costs
- Another technical aspect to this lawsuit will be the plaintiff’s affirmative obligation to demonstrate what the standard of care was (i.e. what the defendant should have done) and how the defendant varied from it. If the defendant chose from one of several acceptable choices, then the plaintiff might not be successful even if the doctor’s choice was rare compared to others. Disfigurement cases see some of the highest rates of compensation. It jars juries and symbolizes the defendant’s mistakes. This should be made front and center in most lawsuits to bolster recovery.
- 735 ILCS 5/2-622
- 740 ILCS 180
- 750 ILCS 65/15
- 735 ILCS 5/13-212
- 735 ILCS 5/2-1116
- 735 ILCS 5/2-1115
- 735 ILCS 5/2-1114
- 735 ILCS 5/2-1205