Practice More Safely // Newsletters // Malpractice Minute

Malpractice Minute

The Malpractice Minute is a monthly, real-life dental malpractice case study — with risk management tips and insights to help you practice more safely. Learn from others, explore how malpractice issues unfold, and gain valuable tips on how to protect yourself and your patients. After reading the case, put your knowledge to the test with the chance to win $50 by participating in the monthly Malpractice Minute contest.

Dentist’s Criticism of Prior Work Leads to Malpractice Claim

Marc Leffler, DDS, Esq.

Reading time: 8 minutes

Sometimes criticizing a patient’s prior dental work can expose dentists to malpractice risk. Understand where the line lies between appropriate patient education and “jousting,” and how communication choices, documentation, and professionalism can influence legal outcomes.

Key Concepts

How criticizing prior work can increase malpractice risk
Keep communication objective and professional
The importance of strong documentation during a claim

Background facts

Dr. Y was a general, restorative dentist who recently moved into a suburban community—with great public schools—to both live and work. The area’s dentists were, generally speaking, busy but not bursting at the seams, so Dr. Y realized that it would not be easy for him to establish his practice with so much competition. His approach would be to sign on to as many dental insurance panels as he could, hoping to use that platform as a foundation upon which to build a patient base. It took a couple of years, but his practice grew.

It was not that Dr. Y would “manufacture” dentistry to perform upon new patients where that need did not exist, but he was what other dentists in the neighborhood described behind the scenes as “hyper-critical” in his evaluations of the dentistry that had been done by prior dentists. R had been a long-term resident of the area, having never had dental insurance until her recent job change. She had completed implant-supported bridgework on both arches some 6-8 months ago, which had cost her a significant amount of money, and she was in the midst of a very slow process of getting used to functioning with the prostheses. With her new employer now providing her with dental insurance—a plan which Dr. Y, but not her prior dentist, Dr. K, accepted—she presented to Dr. Y as a new patient.

At the initial visit, Dr. Y took a full mouth series of radiographs and did a thorough clinical examination. When R mentioned that she “just didn’t feel comfortable” with the new dentistry in her mouth, Dr. Y told her that he knew why: the abutments and pontics were overbuilt, with inadequate embrasure spaces; some of the margins were open, although slightly; and the overall dental anatomy did not allow for self-cleansing, making it “a set-up for periodontal disease.” Dr. Y suggested that all of the prosthetics be removed and replaced. Even with R’s dental insurance contributing a fair amount to the cost of the proposed treatment, she would still have to pay a large amount of money out of pocket and endure a months-long process. R was very upset, to say the least, focusing that displeasure on Dr. K; she had always known that a replacement of Dr. K’s work would likely be required down the road, but she did not expect that so soon after it was inserted.

Dr. Y removed the existing bridges, replaced the implant abutments, re-prepared the natural teeth, impressioned and temporized the mouth, and ultimately inserted new upper and lower cases. R was no happier with the new work, but Dr. Y told her that there was only so much he could do with the underlying foundation that Dr. K had “inadequately established,” so R would simply have to adjust. She never fully did.

Legal action

With R continually complaining to family members and friends about how unhappy she was, not only dentally, but also because of the money she had paid both Dr. K and Dr. Y, while exhausting her annual dental insurance benefits so early in the calendar year, she was encouraged to seek out an attorney who might have some solutions for her. R’s newly retained attorney obtained the dental records of Drs. K and Y, as well as a narrative from Dr. Y, in which he was quite critical of Dr. K’s work product, which was directly responsible for the need to exchange it and for the inability to create a more ideal replacement (due to the underlying damage it/he had caused).

When Dr. K reported the contact from R’s attorney to his malpractice carrier, he was provided with defense counsel, who was able to obtain the records and report from Dr. Y. Dr. K was in literal disbelief at what he saw in writing, but he knew that it would be a difficult task, from a dental standpoint, to demonstrate the quality of his work, with it having been removed and replaced. At the same time, he felt bad for R, his patient of many years, whom he believed had been sold an inaccurate story, for the sake of Dr. Y’s financial gain.

With Dr. K’s counsel functioning as an intermediary at Dr. K’s request, an offer was made to refund to R all that she had paid to Dr. K, in order to stave off the prospect of a lawsuit. R, through her attorney, accepted that offer, with the money changing hands once R executed a Release of Liability document.

Takeaways

As healthcare professionals, dentists are ethically obligated to advise patients regarding the conditions of their mouths, including the status of existing dental work. But without having ever stood in the shoes of a prior-treating dentist, and not knowing what challenges and limitations might have been placed upon them, or how the patient took care of themselves dentally after that treatment, blanket criticisms that do not take any of these potential factors into account are known in the malpractice world as “jousting” —not the medieval game involving horses and lances, but with similar effect. Part of professionalism is being able to candidly communicate with patients without denouncing the work of others, absent full knowledge of all contributing factors. Here, while Dr. Y acted appropriately by advising R of his findings—presuming that he did, in fact, find deficiencies and problems—he stepped into the jousting arena by doing so in a manner that made certain presumptions of blameworthy wrongdoing. It is a fine line to walk, and one to be figured out by all practitioners. Jousting, as compared with notifying, is a significant driver of dental malpractice claims; why that practice is as common as it is, perhaps more so than in other professions, is a speculative exercise for consideration elsewhere.

Dr. K’s decision to try to resolve R’s complaints by offering, and ultimately providing, a refund was a personal one, considering all of the issues involved with defending a protracted dental malpractice case, as compared with taking all of that off of his plate quickly. Refunds are far from uncommon in dental practice; when provided, dentists are wise to protect themselves legally by obtaining a Release of Liability (ROL), signed by the patient, in exchange for the returned money. In essence, a ROL in this context states that the patient is willing to accept a monetary benefit, while relinquishing the right to later sue the dentist regarding the course of conduct that led to that refund. As with all legal documents, ROLs are best prepared and overseen by attorneys, who can assure that the process is carried out in the most appropriate manner, so as to afford the best level of protection. We do note, however, that no ROL will prevent a patient from subsequently making a complaint to a state Dental Board, as the right to report to government entities cannot be given up through a civil process, such as a refund or a settlement. For better or worse, that is the way it is.

Dr. Y’s preparation of a narrative for an attorney is an everyday occurrence. In many jurisdictions, attorneys for patient-plaintiffs are required to obtain some sort of statement, whether written or otherwise, from a dentist, in which that dentist states, in terms of varying specificity, that the treating dentist who is being considered as a potential defendant violated the standard of care, thereby leading to damage to the patient. Such statements are opinions, and opinions vary much of the time, but that is how the system works. To add to the difficulties in defending cases like this, particularly involving restorative dentistry, the work that is later claimed to have been deficient will, by definition, have been removed and replaced, so there can be no after-the-fact reviewing of the criticized work by the defendant and/or his/her defense expert. That serves as yet another reason that documentation (including post-placement radiographs, when appropriate) is so important, as it might well be the only “living” evidence of steps taken and rationales for doing so. Time-consuming as it is, documentation is not something to shortcut: that includes dentists writing their own chart entries, rather than having an assistant or other staff member do it for them.

Summary of takeaways:

Criticizing prior work without full context can increase malpractice risk.
Keep patient communication objective and avoid assigning blame.
Thorough documentation is critical for defending care decisions.

Note that this case presentation includes circumstances from several different closed cases, in order to demonstrate certain legal and risk management principles, and that identifying facts and personal characteristics were modified to protect identities. The content within is not the original work of MedPro Group but has been published with consent of the author. Nothing contained in this article should be construed as legal, medical, or dental advice. Because the facts applicable to your situation may vary, or the laws applicable in your jurisdiction may differ, please contact your personal or business attorney or other professional advisors if you have any questions related to your legal or medical obligations or rights, state or federal laws, contract interpretation, or other legal questions.

Malpractice Minute Contest*

Submit your answer to the question using the form below! The winning answer will receive a $50 gift card.

What documentary methods can dentists use, other than what is described in this case, to best protect themselves from later being sued?

Answer *

What other topics would you be interested in?

First name *

Last name *

Email *

Tell us who you are *

Want more MedPro?

Yes, please sign me up for more case studies like this!

*NO PURCHASE NECESSARY. The “Malpractice Minute Contest” is subject in all respects to the complete Official Rules available by clicking here.

In this case study, we explore how a misidentified biopsy location – due to a miscommunication - resulted in wrong-site surgery and malpractice claims. The case highlights the importance of documentation accuracy in preventing risks.

Key Concepts

Preventing wrong-site surgery through pre-procedure precautions
Vicarious liability for documentation errors
Pure consent to settle clauses in malpractice policies

Background Facts

T, a 71-year-old man, was a retired carpenter, with a medical history of well-controlled hypertension and chronic, episodic sinusitis, and a social history of having smoked at various times in his life, as much as up to a pack of cigarettes a day. He visited his dentist, Dr. D, at irregular intervals and never wanted to establish a big-picture treatment plan. At his most recent visit, Dr. D noted a course, irregular white area at the buccal mucogingival junction around teeth #29-31. Not feeling comfortable making even a provisional diagnosis, Dr. D referred T to a periodontist, Dr. O, to evaluate the area and treat as needed. Dr. O performed an incisional biopsy of the area and sent it to an oral pathologist, Dr. H, for histopathological assessment. The lesion was read out provisionally as atypical epithelial proliferation, but Dr. H asked for a larger sample to be able to make a more definitive diagnosis.

Dr. O took a second specimen from an immediately adjacent site. Due to a clerical error, Dr. O entered into the chart that this specimen had been taken from the "lower left buccal gingiva," with her dental assistant repeating that error on the pathology request form that was forwarded to Dr. H with the tissue. After microscopically examining the specimen, Dr. H diagnosed it definitively. The report from Dr. H to Dr. O read "squamous cell carcinoma, moderately-to-well differentiated, lower left buccal gingiva," the latter aspect having been copied by Dr. H, exactly from the requisition provided by Dr. O's office with the most recent submission.

Upon seeing the words "squamous cell carcinoma," Dr. O immediately referred T to a double-degree oral and maxillofacial surgeon, Dr. M, who had head and neck surgery fellowship training, for evaluation and treatment, giving T a copy of the biopsy report to take with him. Dr. M reviewed Dr. H's report, examined T, noting a small lesion on the buccal aspect of teeth #30-31, and explained to T that he would need a PET scan to determine whether there had been any spread. Presuming no such spread, Dr. M advised T that the lesion could be successfully treated by surgery alone, specifically a marginal mandibulectomy and a limited neck dissection. The lesion had not spread, per the PET scan and other modalities, so the stated plan would go forward. T agreed and surgery was scheduled at a regional medical center.

On the day of surgery, T waited in a pre-surgery room, where his medical history was reviewed and identification was checked. A consent form stating the procedure to be "removal of portion of lower jaw, and neck dissection" was signed by T and witnessed by a nurse. Dr. M said a brief "hello" to T before changing into scrubs and entering the operating room, where T was already on the table. Dr. M asked the anesthesiologist to proceed.

Dr. M had taped Dr. H's biopsy report to the OR wall, read it again, and prepared to make an extraoral left submandibular incision, through which he would both remove a mandibular segment and perform the limited neck dissection. Technically, the procedure went forward uneventfully, with T then transferred to the post-anesthesia care unit. T's wife was brought in to see her husband while Dr. M was still there, dictating his operative note. She was aghast to see that surgery had been performed on T's left side, when she knew that the cancer was on the right. When she confronted Dr. M on the spot, he said, "here's the biopsy report, read it for yourself."

Shortly after T's initial surgical recovery, another surgeon treated T, this time correctly operating on the right side of T's face and neck. T suffered emotionally, to the extent that he sought and obtained psychological counseling, but he was never able to comfortably eat or drink, or otherwise normally function orally again. He required and received reconstruction bilaterally, but he always found it to be very compromised and esthetically unacceptable.

Legal Action

T retained a seasoned attorney, who collected all records and who obtained opinions from a general dentist (like Dr. D), a periodontist (like Dr. O), an oral pathologist (like Dr. H), and an OMS (like Dr. M). The general dentist saw no liability on Dr. D's part, as he had immediately made an appropriate referral. The oral pathologist similarly found no liability as to Dr. H, reasoning that oral pathologists in biopsy situations do not assess the patient clinically. They simply diagnose what they see microscopically, which he did accurately, and report the findings regarding the site that was conveyed on the requisition it had come from.

The conclusions as to Drs. O and M were quite different. The expert periodontist stated his view of Dr. O's negligence succinctly: Dr. O's recording error which incorrectly stated the location of the lesion to be examined was inexcusable, and it served to set the entire cascade of events into action, resulting in wrong-side surgery having been done. The oral surgery expert was deeply critical of Dr. M, claiming that he failed to clinically correlate the location findings on a biopsy report with the patient's actual condition, and then compounded the situation by being unwilling to address his error, thereby violating his duties, both surgically and ethically. In short, said this expert, Dr. M failed to do the most basic tasks, namely double checking the intended surgical site before performing irreversible, life-altering treatments.

Substantial settlement amounts were paid to T on behalf of both Dr. O and Dr. M. Additionally, Dr. M was sanctioned by his State Board.

Takeaways

Wrong-site treatment, including surgery – whether, as here, relating to the side of the mandible to be removed, or extracting a first bicuspid instead of an orthodontically planned-for second bicuspid, or endodontically treating a healthy lower molar instead of the diseased tooth next to it – has permanent effects, which are virtually always preventable. Pre-procedure techniques can be, and routinely are, employed that will stop this type of error from ever taking place, such as taking a time out for confirmation, marking the side/site of surgery, having two people independently confirm what is to be done, clinically correlating a result document (such as a biopsy report) with an actual finding, and having an open, no-consequences policy that encourages office staff to voice any concerns before a potential untoward event begins. The old "a stitch in time" adage is never more applicable than in pre-procedure risk protection.

One of the most frequent case types now seen in malpractice claims is a practitioner performing treatment where it was not intended to be, and the trend appears to be growing. While the reasons for that are simply theories, a common-sense approach is that such events might well be driven by a focus on the number of patients seen and procedures performed. In reality, the amount of time needed before a procedure to assure correct patient, correct site, correct procedure is nominal in comparison to the amount of time that most procedures take. But even if a practitioner or an office is measurably slowed down to achieve those assurances, obligations to patient safety warrant those delays.

This case highlights the consideration of responding to patients and their family members when results are not as planned or expected, when complications come to pass, or, as here, when errors are immediately obvious. It would not likely have changed the ultimate course of legal events had Dr. M responded to T's wife differently, because the negligence was so clear and significant, but it might have reduced the likelihood of a Board complaint being levied against him. Evidence to support that theory lies with the fact that no Board complaint was filed against Dr. O.

The pathology request form sent to Dr. H with the second specimen taken by Dr. O was completed by Dr. O's dental assistant, who wrote the requisition form. By way of a concept known as vicarious liability, what the dental assistant wrote is the functional equivalent of Dr. O having written it herself. The assistant's error, whether copied from Dr. O's own transcription error or not, becomes Dr. O's error as well. All that is delegated comes back to the delegator, so double-checking of even such a seemingly unimportant task is critical for liability protection and for patient protection.

As a background fact, both Dr. O and Dr. M had professional liability ("dental malpractice") policies with "pure consent-to-settle" provisions, meaning that no settlement could have been reached without their agreement to do so. Such a provision means that a practitioner can demand that a lawsuit brought against them be tried in court before a jury, regardless of how strong the evidence of wrongdoing might be. For every case, practitioners are counseled by their attorneys regarding the pros and cons of settlement versus trial, with the potential implications of both fully set out on the table.

Finally, we note that, simply for purposes of brevity, some details, which were not relevant to the risk management issues discussed, were omitted. This is particularly the case regarding the pre-surgical work-up phase of care, secondary criticisms addressed by the experts, and the documentary and testimonial evidence before the State Board. Their absence should not be construed as necessary but missing pieces.

Summary of Takeaways

Wrong site surgery remains a leading and largely preventable source of malpractice claims.
Dentists are accountable for errors made by delegated staff, even when those errors were unintentional.
Simple confirmation practices before irreversible procedures can prevent patient harm and legal consequences.

In this case study, dentists learn how an implant placement evolved into a malpractice lawsuit after the patient developed persistent postoperative nerve injury symptoms. The case demonstrates how clinical choices made at the planning stage can significantly influence the legal trajectory of a case.

Key Concepts

Understanding divergent opinions between experts
Determining standard of care for different radiographic techniques
Understanding the pure consent to settle clause

Background Facts

Dr. P practiced restorative dentistry in a suburban community, since her completion of dental school and a general practice residency. During her formal training and after, she engaged in didactic and clinical coursework involving implant placement and restoration and regularly recommended and employed dental implants in her treatment plans. That was the case when a new area resident, O, a healthy man in his 40s, presented for general care and consideration for replacing missing tooth #30, which was extracted years ago following a trauma-induced fracture.

O's mouth was in generally good repair, as he practiced good home hygiene and had been a regular dental patient for his entire adult life. Dr. P discussed the replacement options of a 3-unit fixed bridge and an endosseous implant, upon which a single crown would be placed. After taking and viewing a panoramic radiograph, Dr. P advised O that he had "plenty of bone" to support an implant, and she suggested that approach. The costs were similar, so O opted for the implant plan. Dr. P advised O of the usual risks of implant surgery, including a nerve injury which could even be permanent in "rare" situations. O agreed to go forward and set up an appointment within the next few weeks.

At the surgical visit, a chairside assistant presented O with a document entitled Implant Consent Form, telling O that this was exactly what Dr. P had discussed with him. O quickly perused the form and signed it. Based upon measurements she made on the panoramic film, Dr. P determined there to be 14.5 mm of mandibular bone superior to the inferior alveolar canal (IAC), so she planned for and placed a 13 mm fixture. Upon elevating a gingival flap, Dr. P noticed that the lingual height of bone was "a good deal" higher than on the buccal aspect. Other than O briefly wincing toward the end of the preparation phase, all went smoothly, with the implant covered with soft tissue and sutured. A post-placement periapical radiograph showed the implant in very close approximation to the IAC, but Dr. P saw "daylight," so she was not concerned.

One week later, at the suture removal visit, O complained of "pins and needles" and "numbness" on the right side of his lower lip and chin. Dr. P stated that she remained "unconcerned," explaining that this is common and all should be back to normal over the next weeks or months. O returned for crown placement 5 months after implant surgery, still with the same "annoying sensations." Dr. P was surprised that the situation had not normalized, but she continued to reassure O of a return to normal. That never came.

Legal Action

O always found the tingling and numbness to be uncomfortable, but he never thought to do anything about it until he met up with a college classmate of his, now an attorney, at an alumni event. The classmate did not practice law where O now lived but suggested that he consult with an attorney he knew who did "a lot of malpractice work." O met with that lawyer, who gathered all of Dr. P's records and sent O to a local neurologist to assess the extent of the injury. The neurologist confirmed that O's mandibular nerve was in fact injured and did not conceive of any improvement, now nearly two years after the surgical event.

O's attorney contacted an experienced dentist whom he knew, who had testified in dental malpractice cases in the past, and who, like Dr. P, regularly placed and restored implants, seeking to retain that dentist as an expert on behalf of O. Following a review of the records, the expert reported back to the attorney that, in his opinion, Dr. P had deviated from the standard of care, which in the expert's view required the use of CBCT radiography in order to accurately determine available bone for implant placement. The expert cited specifically to Dr. P's intraoperative finding of a sloped mandibular crest, which could not have been determined on the 2-D panoramic but would have been seen on a 3-D CBCT, had one been taken. The expert added to that opinion the concept that, once Dr. P noted that lingual-to-buccal slope, she should have immediately stepped back and reconsidered whether the planned-for 13 mm implant was appropriate, which it ended up not being, as the measurement was based upon the highest point of the crest, rather than lower points on that slope which were closer to the IAC.

The attorney quickly filed suit against Dr. P, as the statute of limitations was approaching. Dr. P contacted her professional liability carrier, which assigned defense counsel to Dr. P. O's attorney voluntarily shared his expert's report with defense counsel, hoping to demonstrate a strong basis for an early settlement. However, defense counsel retained its own expert, who opined that the standard of care allowed for 2-D panoramic films for the purpose of implant planning, although acknowledging a deep split within the dental profession. Some dentists and organized dental groups asserted that (exactly because of anatomic situations as Dr. P found) 3-D studies were required prior to posterior mandibular implant placement, with other dentists and dental groups agreeing with this defense expert's stance. In part, the latter view is supported by the statistical fact that, according to recent assessments, only 29% of U.S. general/restorative dentists have on-site CBCT availability, with less than 2/3 of dental specialists having such access.

Defense counsel recognized that a motion for summary judgment––one seeking dismissal of the case without trial––would not be fruitful because such a motion can only be successful when, among other things, there is no legitimate difference between opposing expert opinions. Therefore, defense counsel thoroughly presented Dr. P with her options: (1) go to trial and ask a jury to determine whether she had run afoul of the standard of care, allowing them to award money to compensate O for his injuries if they determined that she did not meet the standard of care, and if that was causative of his injuries; or (2) trying to reach a pre-trial settlement, presuming that the carrier agreed with that prospect, which it did.

Dr. P frankly said to her attorney that, in multiple continuing education classes she had taken, the need for pre-implant CBCT studies was discussed, for the very reasons highlighted in O's treatment. She further acknowledged that she would have to testify to that experience if asked at trial. Dr. P was concerned, so she authorized attempts to resolve the case. Because O's injuries were viewed, even by his own lawyer, as not severe, evidenced in part by O having never sought subsequent evaluations or care other than at the direction of his attorney, a modest settlement was reached.

Takeaways

It is the rule, and not the exception, that experts for plaintiffs and defendants will disagree, and that is also the case for dentists, outside of the litigation realm. Those disagreements take center stage during dental malpractice trials, with jurors left to determine which of the opposing positions they accept. As Dr. P reasoned here, it is rarely, if ever, simply a coin flip, because a host of factors play into jury determinations, so the pre-trial "prediction calculus" takes into account a common sense approach as to how lay people will most likely come to their conclusions on matters of science and professional expertise. Sometimes demeanors of the parties and/or experts carry the day. Sometimes the bases of expert opinions are determinative, and sometimes, as might play here, particular professional experiences in the dentist's past are of significance. While legitimate (not fabricated) differences of expert conclusions generally preclude dismissal before trial by way of motions, those differences will need to be resolved by a trial jury. There is no getting around that.

This case study briefly touches on the concept of statute of limitations (SOL), so a short description is in order. The SOL is the time following a claimed negligent event (or sometimes the subsequent discovery of that event) within which a plaintiff must file suit or be forever time-barred. Of course, as with so many issues in the law, there are nuances and issues which can serve to lengthen the allowable timeframe, but they are exceptions, with the statutory SOL generally being the bedrock. The concept of SOL is perhaps the most variable legal issue as between the States––or at least close to the top of the list––but it is a consideration for attorneys (or self-represented plaintiffs) to grapple with, and not something with which dentists need to familiarize themselves.

As the body of this case study references, divergent views exist within dentistry as to what radiographic techniques are "best" for various planned procedures or diagnostic approaches, which in the litigation arena often translates to opinions as to standard of care. Articles in respected journals present competing ideas. Some take the approach that dentists are in the most ideal position to make patient-based, procedure-based, and circumstance-based decisions as to which radiographic techniques––whether CBCT, panoramic, periapical, etc.––are most appropriate clinically. Others are more rigid, asserting, for example, that nearly all invasive dental/oral surgical procedures require CBCT studies in advance. While we do not advocate here in either direction, dentists and oral surgeons ought to be aware of these opposing schools of thought and consider them in decision-making, realizing that jurors might get the final say.

We end on a note about the decision faced by Dr. P. Given that she had a "consent-to-settle" policy, it was her right to refuse any type of settlement, regardless of the input or advice of her counsel or insurer. Had she not had such a policy, that decision would not have been hers to make. This is yet another issue for dentists to consider when choosing a malpractice carrier and policy.

MedPro Group is the marketing name used to refer to the insurance operations of The Medical Protective Company, Princeton Insurance Company, PLICO, Inc. and MedPro RRG Risk Retention Group. All insurance products are underwritten and administered by these and other Berkshire Hathaway affiliates, including National Fire & Marine Insurance Company. Product availability is based upon business and/or regulatory approval and/or may differ among companies. © MedPro Group Inc. All rights reserved.

[post_title] => Dentist’s Choice of Radiographic Technique Leads to Lawsuit [post_excerpt] => [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => dentists-choice-of-radiographic-technique-leads-to-lawsuit [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2026-05-29 13:58:45 [post_modified_gmt] => 2026-05-29 17:58:45 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://medprodental.com/?p=10240 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw ) [2] => WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 10195 [post_author] => 180159417 [post_date] => 2026-01-09 04:03:29 [post_date_gmt] => 2026-01-09 09:03:29 [post_content] =>

In this case study, dentists will discover how a patient’s preference to complete treatment in a single stage—rather than the clinician-recommended two-stage approach—combined with antibiotic selection and non-clinical staff advice, ultimately led to a malpractice lawsuit and patient harm. This article highlights the importance of informed consent, careful risk management, and keeping patient communications strictly professional.

Key Concepts

Antibiotic risks and complications in dental care
Non-clinical staff-patient communication
Patient choice vs. the standard of care

Underlying facts

D, a 26-year-old man, presented to an endodontist, Dr. Q, on referral of his family dentist, some 6-7 years following his having been struck in the face by a batted baseball. Over the past few months, tooth #8 had begun to darken and become episodically painful. Approximately a week prior to this visit, D developed a pea-sized swelling in the gingiva at the level of the tooth's apex. Radiographically, a periapical radiolucency on #8 was visible, and the tooth was non-vital. The endodontist suggested endodontic therapy, to which the patient agreed.

Upon entry into the pulp chamber, yellow, foul-smelling purulent discharge exuded through the tooth; the apical swelling immediately reduced in size. The tooth was thoroughly irrigated internally until no pus was visible. Because D was soon going out of town for work for several weeks, he asked the endodontist if she could "just finish it up" that same day, rather than returning a week later as Dr. Q had suggested. Dr. Q acceded. After the filing was completed, obturation with gutta percha was performed by Dr. Q, with the apical extent approximately 1mm short of the radiographic apex. NSAIDs were recommended as needed.

Two days later, D called the office and told the receptionist that he had a sudden increase in swelling and a low-grade fever; the receptionist reassured the patient by saying, "we see this all the time so it's nothing to worry about," without having consulted with Dr. Q. Three days after that, while still traveling and with the swelling now approaching the eye, D called the endodontist after hours and spoke directly with her; the patient reported an allergy to Penicillin, so Dr. Q called in a prescription for Clindamycin, which the patient started that same evening.

Now nine days after the initial treatment, the patient again called the office and spoke with Dr. Q, advising her that his facial swelling was much reduced and getting better continually, but he had spasmodic diarrhea; the endodontist told her patient that, as long as the dental symptoms were improving, which they were, he should continue and finish out the antibiotic and take over-the-counter anti-diarrheal medications. The patient did exactly that but ended up in a hospital emergency room a few days later for worsening and uncontrollable diarrhea with severe GI pain, where he was diagnosed with Clindamycin-induced pseudomembranous colitis. He was admitted for IV fluids/antibiotics and supportive care; he was monitored for a potential peritonitis, which never came to pass, and was discharged home after losing seven pounds. D was unable to secure the sales deal he had traveled for, as he was hospitalized during several scheduled meetings; the potential client made the transaction with another vendor.

Legal action

In addition to the physical upheaval that he had experienced, and the medical and hospital bills which were only partially covered by his insurance plan, D was mostly distressed by the fact that he had lost the opportunity for a large sale that he believed would have positioned him for an early-career promotion, with its associated salary increase. He sought out and retained an attorney.

The newly hired attorney forwarded the dental and medical records to two potential experts, an endodontist and a medical infectious diseases specialist. The endodontist was of the views: that under the existing conditions, the root canal treatment should not have been completed in one visit, but acknowledged that this was a judgment call such that other practitioners might well disagree; that if Dr. Q did agree to complete the procedure in one step, as she did, the prescribing of antibiotics at that time would have been preferred, but again recognized that some other endodontists would not agree; that Dr. Q's providing Clindamycin in the face of a potential Penicillin allergy, in a patient with a worsening infection and unable to be seen clinically, was an acceptable choice, although it was unclear whether Dr. Q adequately discussed the possible GI risks with D; and that the office receptionist was clearly and inappropriately acting beyond her non-professional status in providing the advice that she gave.

The medical expert confirmed that it was clearly the Clindamycin that was responsible for all of the GI symptoms experienced by D, as well as the hospital care that followed, and that the 3-day delay (and worsening infection) created by the receptionist's advice deprived both D and Dr. Q of the opportunity to have an antibiotic with less severe side effects than Clindamycin to have been used.

D's attorney opted for a simple litigation approach. On behalf of D, he filed suit against Dr. Q's practice entity – but not Dr. Q – based upon what the attorney viewed as strong arguments on both the liability and causation fronts as to the practice, with only "judgment call" issues available against Dr. Q. The damages claimed were the GI-based pain and suffering, the unpaid medical costs, the monetary values of the "lost" sale and the "loss" of salary increase. Given that Dr. Q's practice entity was covered for malpractice, the carrier provided defense counsel to put forth a defense for the practice, working with Dr. Q for that purpose, although not defending her personally.

After depositions were taken, the defense attorney applied to the Court to have the values of the lost sale and potential salary excluded from any potential damages able to be recovered. The Court agreed, determining those amounts to be entirely speculative, in that even if D would have had the chance to attend the meetings he missed, those were merely "opportunities,” so there is no way to prove that he would have been successful in his endeavor. The other claims in the case remained. Realizing the pitfalls of trying to defend the actions of the receptionist, Dr. Q and the practice's attorney, with the agreement of the carrier, worked toward and completed a settlement on behalf of the practice, for an amount which took care of expenses and physical pain and suffering, with no permanent after-effects, at a far lower value than had lost earnings been included.

Takeaways

In essence, D's expert endodontist determined that all of the actions taken by Dr. Q – the one-visit RCT, the non-prescribing of antibiotics at that time, and the choice of Clindamycin – were judgment calls, subject to opinions as to appropriateness on both sides of the fence, thereby leading D's attorney to refrain from pursuing those claims. [We note here that not all attorneys for plaintiffs would approach this in the same way.] Instead, the lawsuit was focused on what D's attorney viewed as a sole "winning argument," which was in fact the result. To reiterate a concept discussed in prior case studies, the general principle is that a plaintiff must prove through expert testimony that – with a general standard of "more likely than not" – a defendant dentist departed from good and accepted practice standards, thereby directly causing injury to the patient. For all issues except for the receptionist's involvement, the endodontist expert for D did not adequately meet that hurdle, at least in the eyes of D's attorney; the medical expert causally connected the receptionist's actions with the injuries to D.

There has been and continues to be controversy in the dental community regarding the use of Clindamycin. While its potentially severe side effects are well-publicized, it has therapeutic benefits as well: the classic double-edged sword. We do not comment upon the propriety of a given practitioner's choice to prescribe it in a particular situation, but just as with all choices, they are best made with a sound and deliberative thought process, so that a defense can be meaningfully put forward if untoward results come to pass.

As a side thought, we visit the issue of a case settling as against a practice entity versus the dentist him/herself; if such a potential ever exists during a malpractice case management, it is something to be coordinated between the dentist, liability carrier, and defense counsel. As a general rule, although potentially with exceptions, payments for professional liability against individual practitioners are reportable to national – and sometimes state – data banks and authorities, whereas those against an entity, as here, are not. To be clear, it is never a given that case resolutions of the type done here can always be made; to the contrary, it is not very common in the world of dental malpractice, with carriers constrained to do so only after an assessment that no specific provider bore any liability. But none of this negates the importance of dental practitioners assuring that dental/medical advice to patients must only be given by dental professionals, leaving only administrative tasks to non-professional staff members.

We end with a brief discussion about dentists acceding to performing procedures that patients "demand," even when those dentists do not believe that doing so is in those patients' best interests. Yes, patients have an absolute right to decide which of multiple alternatives they wish to pursue, but only if those alternatives are dentally and/or medically viable. Patients can refuse anything, but they should not dictate what a dentist must do.

[post_title] => Clindamycin Side Effects Lead to Dental Malpractice Lawsuit [post_excerpt] => [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => clindamycin-side-effects-lead-to-dental-malpractice-lawsuit [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2026-04-30 14:29:05 [post_modified_gmt] => 2026-04-30 18:29:05 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://medprodental.com/?p=10195 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw ) ) [post_count] => 3 [current_post] => -1 [before_loop] => 1 [in_the_loop] => [post] => WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 10296 [post_author] => 180159417 [post_date] => 2026-03-13 09:52:32 [post_date_gmt] => 2026-03-13 13:52:32 [post_content] =>

Key Concepts

Preventing wrong-site surgery through pre-procedure precautions
Vicarious liability for documentation errors
Pure consent to settle clauses in malpractice policies

Background Facts

Legal Action

Substantial settlement amounts were paid to T on behalf of both Dr. O and Dr. M. Additionally, Dr. M was sanctioned by his State Board.

Takeaways

Summary of Takeaways

Wrong site surgery remains a leading and largely preventable source of malpractice claims.
Dentists are accountable for errors made by delegated staff, even when those errors were unintentional.
Simple confirmation practices before irreversible procedures can prevent patient harm and legal consequences.

[post_title] => Why Accurate Documentation Matters Before Referral and Surgery [post_excerpt] => [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => why-accurate-documentation-matters-before-referral-and-surgery [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2026-06-30 10:47:15 [post_modified_gmt] => 2026-06-30 14:47:15 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://medprodental.com/?p=10296 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw ) [comment_count] => 0 [current_comment] => -1 [found_posts] => 11 [max_num_pages] => 4 [max_num_comment_pages] => 0 [is_single] => [is_preview] => [is_page] => [is_archive] => 1 [is_date] => [is_year] => [is_month] => [is_day] => [is_time] => [is_author] => [is_category] => [is_tag] => 1 [is_tax] => [is_search] => [is_feed] => [is_comment_feed] => [is_trackback] => [is_home] => [is_privacy_policy] => [is_404] => [is_embed] => [is_paged] => [is_admin] => [is_attachment] => [is_singular] => [is_robots] => [is_favicon] => [is_posts_page] => [is_post_type_archive] => [query_vars_hash:WP_Query:private] => 62ab0da498b06ea04b2918198dacc839 [query_vars_changed:WP_Query:private] => [thumbnails_cached] => [allow_query_attachment_by_filename:protected] => [stopwords:WP_Query:private] => [compat_fields:WP_Query:private] => Array ( [0] => query_vars_hash [1] => query_vars_changed ) [compat_methods:WP_Query:private] => Array ( [0] => init_query_flags [1] => parse_tax_query ) [query_cache_key:WP_Query:private] => wp_query:dfb6f327c7c4847ac6879825d8d80ad5 )

Read previous Malpractice Minute case studies

Why Accurate Documentation Matters Before Referral and Surgery

In this case study, inaccurate referral information leads to wrong site surgery and a malpractice claim. Read the case to learn how to prevent errors.

Dentist’s Choice of Radiographic Technique Leads to Lawsuit

In this case study, radiographic imaging decisions for a dental implant procedure leads to a malpractice suit. Read the case to learn how the case unfolded.

Clindamycin Side Effects Lead to Dental Malpractice Lawsuit

A dental malpractice case reveals the risks of clindamycin, informed consent gaps, and the impact of non-clinical staff advice on patient safety.

Malpractice Minute

Dentist’s Criticism of Prior Work Leads to Malpractice Claim

Get useful content from MedPro delivered to your inbox.

Summary of takeaways:

Read previous Malpractice Minute case studies