Bette Robin, DDS, JD 877 DrRobin
SELECT PRACTICE SERVICES, INC. / DENTAL PRACTICE SALES
SELECT PRACTICE SERVICES, INC. / DENTAL PRACTICE SALES
MALPRACTICE MALADIES
I thought a review of some of the most recent malpractice trial judgments
would be interesting reading this month and they always keep us on our toes.
Some of these cases include:
$125,000 for taste and feeling. The severing of the lingual or inferior alveolar
nerve during the extraction of a third molar represents a relatively common
legal scenario. An Orange County dentist is the most recent reported trial
case for this incident. A general dentist decided not to refer his patient to an
oral surgeon for the removal of 3rds and attempted the procedure himself.
The teeth came out, but so did a lot of jaw bone and the nerve was either
severed or permanently damaged. Our legal system in California has basically
determined such cases are worth in the low one hundred thousands. I don’t
think I’d give up my taste and feeling for that much!
A $100,000 verdict was handed down under a ‘spoilation of evidence’ theory
in the case of a Los Angeles dentist that altered and falsified original treating
records in the case of an implant/crown patient. The dentist, whose name
remained confidential, placed multiple cantilever bridges in which he admitted
that they might not have been the ‘best’ treatment decision, did not treat the
patient’s periodontal condition, left considerable cement on the teeth, and had
grossly open margins. One of the problems was that the dentist failed to alter
all the records. His appointment book and lab slips told the true story, and
they conflicted with the patient record. Note that malpractice insurance does
not normally cover this type of intentional fraud and here the doctor further
irritated the court when he refused to present his personal financial
information without being compelled to do so. Will he ever learn?
Here’s the case of a dentist who seemed to do everything right but still got
sued. Dr. Dewhirst’s patient, Gigi, came to the office with a toothache. Gigi
had been a patient of the Dewhirst’s Partnership dental office for many years.
It was determined by an associate dentist that Gigi needed a root canal on
tooth #5 to solve her problem. The dentist diligently placed a rubber dam,
rubber dam napkin and clip. The access opening was prepared, the canal
was negotiated, and sodium hypo chlorite was used
as irrigation. High volume suction aspirated the solution. However, when Gigi
went home, she claimed she suffered from a severe chemical burn in her
mouth and on her chin as a result of the bleach. She stated in trial that she
had to wear a face mask for a year until the scars healed and that she now
suffers permanently from agoraphobia from the rubber dam. Gigi sued for
$99,500. Fortunately for the treating dentist, a dermatologist Gigi saw 4 days
after the incident could not detect any evidence of
burn or tissue damage, nor did her family physician. The dentist won, but lost
a lot of time and undoubtedly a lot of sleep.
Sometimes there is nothing you can do to prevent getting sued. But usually
keeping excellent records, communicating continually with your patients, and
following accepted treatment modalities will keep you from the witness stand.
© Bette Robin, DDS, JD 12/98
would be interesting reading this month and they always keep us on our toes.
Some of these cases include:
$125,000 for taste and feeling. The severing of the lingual or inferior alveolar
nerve during the extraction of a third molar represents a relatively common
legal scenario. An Orange County dentist is the most recent reported trial
case for this incident. A general dentist decided not to refer his patient to an
oral surgeon for the removal of 3rds and attempted the procedure himself.
The teeth came out, but so did a lot of jaw bone and the nerve was either
severed or permanently damaged. Our legal system in California has basically
determined such cases are worth in the low one hundred thousands. I don’t
think I’d give up my taste and feeling for that much!
A $100,000 verdict was handed down under a ‘spoilation of evidence’ theory
in the case of a Los Angeles dentist that altered and falsified original treating
records in the case of an implant/crown patient. The dentist, whose name
remained confidential, placed multiple cantilever bridges in which he admitted
that they might not have been the ‘best’ treatment decision, did not treat the
patient’s periodontal condition, left considerable cement on the teeth, and had
grossly open margins. One of the problems was that the dentist failed to alter
all the records. His appointment book and lab slips told the true story, and
they conflicted with the patient record. Note that malpractice insurance does
not normally cover this type of intentional fraud and here the doctor further
irritated the court when he refused to present his personal financial
information without being compelled to do so. Will he ever learn?
Here’s the case of a dentist who seemed to do everything right but still got
sued. Dr. Dewhirst’s patient, Gigi, came to the office with a toothache. Gigi
had been a patient of the Dewhirst’s Partnership dental office for many years.
It was determined by an associate dentist that Gigi needed a root canal on
tooth #5 to solve her problem. The dentist diligently placed a rubber dam,
rubber dam napkin and clip. The access opening was prepared, the canal
was negotiated, and sodium hypo chlorite was used
as irrigation. High volume suction aspirated the solution. However, when Gigi
went home, she claimed she suffered from a severe chemical burn in her
mouth and on her chin as a result of the bleach. She stated in trial that she
had to wear a face mask for a year until the scars healed and that she now
suffers permanently from agoraphobia from the rubber dam. Gigi sued for
$99,500. Fortunately for the treating dentist, a dermatologist Gigi saw 4 days
after the incident could not detect any evidence of
burn or tissue damage, nor did her family physician. The dentist won, but lost
a lot of time and undoubtedly a lot of sleep.
Sometimes there is nothing you can do to prevent getting sued. But usually
keeping excellent records, communicating continually with your patients, and
following accepted treatment modalities will keep you from the witness stand.
© Bette Robin, DDS, JD 12/98
DrRobin@BetteRobin.com
17482 Irvine Blvd., Suite E
Tustin, CA 92780
Tustin, CA 92780
Tele:
877 DrRobin
714.421.4407
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
DrRobin@BetteRobin.com
17482 Irvine Blvd., Suite E
Tustin, CA 92780
Tustin, CA 92780
877 DrRobin
Tele:
714.421.4407
Fax:
714.398.8808