Accomplishments

On June 27, 2025, Christian Fumuso received a unanimous defense verdict after a 2 week trial in Rockland County before the Honorable Judge Greenwald.  It was alleged that the defendant oral surgeon negligently extracted the patients right lower wisdom tooth (#32) resulting in permanent facial nerve damage after injuring the inferior alveolar nerve.  Plaintiff claimed that the extraction of the partially impacted tooth was not indicated and the appropriate procedure should have been a coronectomy.  Throughout the trial plaintiff called an expert in oral and maxillofacial surgery who opined that the defendant failed to appreciate the overlap of tooth #32 on the IA canal which resulted in violation of the nerve during extraction resulting in permanent parasthesia.  In response the defense called an expert in oral and maxillofacial surgery who commented upon the post operative CT scan which revealed no evidence of a violated canal and opined that the post-operative parasthesia was the result of subclinical swelling from the surgical site and an assumed risk of the procedure.  The defense expert also opined that plaintiff’s theory regarding coronectomy was contraindicated whereas extraction was appropriate based upon the patients complaints and active infectious process.

Plaintiff’s attorney asked the jury to return a verdict of $750,000 for past and future pain and suffering related to facial nerve damage.  The jury deliberated for 45 minutes and returned a unanimous defense verdict.          

On June 12, 2025, Christian Fumuso received a unanimous defense verdict after a 2 week trial in Queens County before Judge Catapano-Fox.  It was alleged that the defendant oral surgeon negligently extracted the lower 2^nd molars of a then 14-year-old infant plaintiff after she presented on an emergent basis with evidence of pain and bilateral pericorinitis.  Plaintiff claimed the extractions were not indicated and resulted in the need for additional extractions to make room for lower implants and supporting crowns.  Throughout the trial plaintiff called experts in the fields of oral surgery and orthodontics – both of whom testified that the infant-plaintiff was indicated for less invasive measures of her symptomatic teeth, including exposure and/or up-righting.  The defense called an expert in oral surgery who opined that extraction of infected symptomatic teeth was consistent with accepted practice and the patient was not a candidate for exposure and/or up-righting due to the anatomical shape and size of her jaw.  Defendant’s expert also opined that the  subsequent dental implants were contraindicated and unnecessary due to the patients functioning 1^st molar occlusion.

Plaintiff’s attorney asked the jury to return a global award of $650,000 for past and future pain and suffering along with associated costs for implant management and replacement.  The jury deliberated for 1 hour and returned a unanimous defense verdict for the oral surgeon.