Practice More Safely // Risk Tips // Teledentistry: A Double-Edged Sword?

Teledentistry: A Double-Edged Sword?

Case Study

Marc Leffler, DDS, Esq., & Mario Catalano, DDS, MAGD
January 24, 2025

Reading time: 8 minutes

Dentist recording video for social media.

Introduction

During the recent pandemic, and most particularly when dental offices were either closed or open only for true emergencies, “examinations” by many dentists were often restricted to verbal communications by telephone or with a visual assist via computer cameras. A number of states adopted regulations that permit expanded allowances for non-in-person treatments, and some even permit dentists to conduct these patient interactions outside of their states of licensure.

Furthermore, new American Dental Association (ADA) billing codes have been added to account for teledentistry meetings, both directly between dentist and patient, and with a professional dental (hygienist, therapist) intermediary. Statements from various state authorities and dental boards, whether official or not, made it clear that the treatment standards for teledentistry were the same as for in-person dental care with this new trend.

For years, dentists have routinely conducted teledentistry visits with their patients of record, perhaps without even realizing it, by speaking with them to discuss a newly developed complaint or a post-procedure complication, or to refill previously prescribed medications. However, the newly expanded universe of teledentistry has opened to include patients never before seen by the teledentist, which has simultaneously increased the potential for malpractice liability, as the following case from the Southeast demonstrates.

Case Discussion

In March of 2020, a 61-year-old woman who had not seen a dentist for years complained to her friend about something bothering the underside of her tongue near the back of the mouth. She did not know a dentist to consult, and she was hesitant to seek care at a hospital emergency department (ED). She did not wish to subject herself to a high-infection-risk venue, and she knew that hospital facilities and workers were stretched very thin to the point that she might not even be accepted for evaluation or treatment. The friend volunteered that she could contact her own general dentist to see if he could help out, and she did so.

The dentist agreed to visit with the patient over a video conferencing platform, although he had never done that before, and they arranged to “meet” the following day. A remarkably clear picture and sound appeared as they both logged on to their respective computers. The patient was asked whether she had any medical problems or took any medications regularly, and she responded that she did not. She said that she was prone to developing “canker sores” for most of her adult life, and she thought that she had a bothersome one under her tongue now. She wanted to make sure of it because she felt uncomfortable “for about 2 weeks.”

Directly in front of her laptop’s camera, but without any additional ambient lighting, she opened her mouth as wide as possible, pulling her tongue out of the way with a spoon handle to try to show the dentist the area of concern. The dentist found it difficult to visualize anything in the area other than a normal-appearing tongue and lingual gingiva. He was completely unable to see the floor of the patient’s mouth and inferior aspect of her tongue. The dentist said that he could not see anything abnormal but that he was not overly concerned, especially given her history of aphthous ulcers. He advised the patient to rinse often with salt water, apply a topical ointment that was available for order online, and just “tough it out.” The patient followed the instructions, but continued to be bothered in that area.

The first time she saw this dentist in his office was not until July of 2020. Clinical examination revealed that she had a readily apparent erosive lesion at the junction of the inferior aspect of the tongue and the floor of the mouth. The dentist was able to visualize it only by having an assistant retract the tongue and shine a bright office light in the patient’s mouth.

When he referred the patient to an oral surgeon for a biopsy, this was the first time he learned that the patient had a 45-pack-year history of cigarette smoking. He had not asked and she had not offered it during the teledentistry visit. Following receipt of the biopsy report diagnosing squamous cell carcinoma, the oral surgeon referred the patient to a head and neck surgeon, who performed a work-up that established that the patient had Stage III disease. It was treated with ablative surgery and radiation therapy; her prognosis is guarded, and she has significant eating and general function compromises.

Risk Management Considerations

Theodore Passineau, JD, HRM, RPLU, CPHRM, FASHRM

As dentistry changes, so must our approaches to risk management. While it is true that dentists have been speaking to and consulting with their patients by telephone for many years, the recent addition of videoconferencing as part of that process has provided new advantages, but new challenges as well. Every dentist knows that visual access to certain parts of the mouth is difficult under the best of circumstances, even in office settings and with overhead, focused lighting; however, patients likely do not realize these limitations.

Therefore, when a teledentistry visit involving videoconferencing platforms takes place, it is incumbent on the dentist to advise the patient from the start that diagnostic and treatment capabilities are restricted, perhaps significantly when compared with in-person assessments. Make sure the patient understands this by putting it in writing and obtaining the patient’s signature before the teledentistry visit. Similarly, the taking of medical, dental, and social histories should be done in the same manner as if the patient were being seen in person. Failing to do so, as was the situation regarding the patient’s smoking history in this case study, might deprive the dentist of information specifically relevant to the complaints expressed, thereby increasing the risk of a missed diagnosis.

Dentists should view the positions of certain jurisdictions regarding standard of care – sometimes with accompanying statutes – very seriously. By understanding that they might be in a circumstance whereby they will be held to the same treatment standards in a teledentistry visit as in an office visit, with the potential for related malpractice and/or state board claims, dentists can and should consider the limits of their patient-related abilities, modify the bounds of teledentistry visits, and thoroughly explain these considerations to these patients.

In the same vein, dentists should document teledentistry visits just as they would an office visit, including advising patients to follow up with them or another dentist in person as soon as possible and reasonable as is customary. Had the dentist in this case study done so, there would have been documentation in the patient’s record indicating the dentist advised the patient of the importance of follow-up, so that if the patient, as here, delayed doing so for 4 months, a stronger and more protective liability stance could have been taken in the event of a lawsuit or board action, in addition to better protecting the patient’s health.

Significant differences exist between teledentistry visits with existing patients versus those who are not patients of record. With the former, the dentist already has a record containing history, treatment, radiographs, and perhaps other diagnostics, so he or she is able to contextualize teledentistry complaints into the entire patient picture. When new patients have teledentistry visits, the dentist has merely a snapshot of the clinical situation, injecting a greater liability risk into the assessment and treatment process. It is true that medicine has been using teledentistry visits for new patients for some time and with success, likely because medical diagnoses are most often based on detailed history taking and assessment of areas, which are typically much easier to visualize than inside the oral cavity.

Finally, we address our thoughts as to how malpractice claims might evolve when the allegations are based on actions or inactions over a video platform. As we have expressed in prior case studies, malpractice claims must be proven through expert testimony asserting opinions of what the particular standard of care means and how it was departed from. With the current form of teledentistry, there is little in the way of experience to be able to consider who is viewed as an expert in such a litigation and what the standard of care specifically is in a given situation. We now have recent input from states in offering statutory guidance that teledentistry standards of care are no different from office standards of care: if that is how courts will interpret and allow evidence to come before them, it should be viewed by the dental community with concern, because examining a patient through a computer camera is far different from doing so in a dental chair.

Summary Suggestions

Dentists providing teledentistry services may find the following tips helpful in preventing liability exposure:

If, during a teledentistry visit, the dentist determines that the issues presented go beyond safe and beneficial boundaries, then he or she should refer the patient to a site where in-person care can be provided, such as a hospital ED, a dental school, or another suitable healthcare provider.
All patients who may use teledentistry services should be adequately educated regarding its proper use and its limitations. This education is ideally set forth in writing requiring the patient’s signature prior to the teledentistry appointment.
When teledentistry is used, the dentist must have an appropriate method of documenting the patient encounter and maintaining HIPAA considerations regarding every aspect of the interaction.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, many state boards of dentistry have relaxed their teledentistry regulations to improve access to care. In some of these states, the changes might be permanent, whereas other states may revert to previous standards. It is essential that the dentist who uses teledentistry be knowledgeable of his or her state’s then-current regulations.

Conclusion

It is almost certain that communication technology will continue to morph and advance. As a result, it is likely that, going forward, these changes will affect the way teledentistry will be practiced. It will be incumbent on dentists to stay abreast of new developments in the technology and adjust their approach to teledentistry in response to them.

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.

In this real-life case study, dentists will see how a billing dispute and incomplete informed consent process escalated into a malpractice lawsuit. Learn why clear communication about treatment risks, accurate coding practices, and thoughtful handling of patient concerns are essential to reducing liability and protecting patient trust.

Key concepts

Dentist sued after a billing dispute and nerve injury
How informed consent gaps can increase malpractice risk
Why accurate coding and patient communication matter

Background facts

For Dr. A, extracting teeth was an everyday part of practice, as was virtually the entire scope of dentistry. In addition to postdoctoral training, she had been performing these procedures for years in a region of the state with no oral surgeons within a 2–3-hour drive. She was a participating provider in several dental insurance plans that were popular among her patients.

One such patient, P, was an 18-year-old high school senior who presented for an annual recall visit, with a new complaint of periodic pain associated with the lower right third molar. Despite P being of majority, his mother accompanied him into the treatment room to see Dr. A. Following a clinical examination, a panoramic film was taken and viewed by Dr. A. Tooth #32 was erupted, had incomplete apex formation, but was still in close radiographic proximity to the inferior alveolar canal. Dr. A assessed the pain to be a function of difficulty in cleansing the area, with inflamed gingivae as a result. She suggested, while pointing to the panoramic, extraction, which she said, "shouldn't be too hard,” although it carried a "slight risk of a nerve injury which could leave P's lower lip and chin numb, and rarely be permanent." This conversation was documented with specificity in the chart. P had heard about impacted wisdom teeth from a few friends, so he asked whether his tooth was impacted. Dr. A replied, "No, it is not.” P wanted to think about it, so he left the office with a sample of an oral rinse and instructions as to how to improve his oral hygiene. A month later, the symptoms persisted, so P's mother called the office to schedule an extraction appointment.

Before having local anesthetic injected, P was handed a paper entitled "consent form,” which he and his mother "briefly read.” The document contained a list of potential risks, including a general statement about possible "loss of sensation.” P signed the document prior to the extraction going forward. Dr. A worked on the tooth for well over an hour, much longer than she had anticipated, cutting out pieces of tooth and trimming away bone using round and fissure burs. P could taste blood, particularly at one point, which caused Dr. A to pack gauze in his mouth. The following day, P awoke to find the right half of his lower lip and chin numb, which he did not find surprising, given the warning beforehand, but so was the right half of his tongue, which was a surprise. At post-op visits, Dr. A assured and re-assured P and his mother that feeling would return to normal — it never did.

Separately, P received a bill for Dr. A's services from her billing office, seeking a co-pay for "#32 7240.” The amount was significant, despite Dr. A's advertised plan participation, so P's mother questioned the office manager as to what all of this meant. The response was that, according to the insurance plan's rules, Dr. A was permitted to charge that amount for fully impacted wisdom teeth, as this was. P's mother replied that Dr. A had specifically advised her and her son that the tooth was not impacted, no less fully so. The office manager spoke with Dr. A, but the answer came back that, because Dr. A had to work so long to remove the tooth, she was not willing to make any adjustments.

P's mother contacted the insurance carrier to explain the situation. The carrier requested a pre-treatment radiograph from Dr. A, based upon which the in-house reviewers concluded that the tooth was not appropriately coded as 7240, but rather should have been 7210 (surgical extraction of erupted tooth). Under the plan provisions, Dr. A was therefore not permitted to charge any co-pay but instead accept the plan payment in full. When the insurer notified Dr. A of that, with a copy sent to P's mother (whose employer provided the coverage), Dr. A was steadfast that she was entitled to the amount billed and would send P to collection if she was not paid. P's mother did pay the claimed balance, but the carrier dropped Dr. A from the panel due to what it referenced as "upcoding resulting in excessive billing.”

Legal action

P had slowly been adapting to the lip, chin, and tongue numbness, but his mother remained upset about the principle of billing her son and threatening a collection action, so she contacted an attorney. The attorney was not very familiar with dentistry in any legal regard, so he reached out to his own dentist, with a copy of Dr. A's records that he had been provided, to help him interpret what was going on. The dentist agreed with the insurance company's position that the extraction had been inappropriately upcoded, but perhaps more importantly that it was clear from the records that, while P had been warned of the possibility of an inferior alveolar nerve injury and its effects, he had not been told anything about tongue numbness, which came from an injury to an entirely different nerve branch and which should have been avoided if proper technique had been employed.

The attorney initiated a lawsuit against Dr. A, asserting lack of informed consent relating to the lingual nerve injury, dental malpractice regarding the causing of the lingual nerve injury, and breach of contract leading to the improperly billed (and collected) co-pay amount. The defense attorneys assigned to Dr. A by her malpractice carrier reviewed the case with their client and advised her that they would seek expert opinion as to the substance of the informed consent and malpractice claims, but that she would not be covered for the breach of contract claim, per a clearly stated policy exclusion.

The expert retained by Dr. A's counsel was provisionally willing to present a defense as to the malpractice claim regarding her having negligently caused the tongue numbness, but that position would need to be re-evaluated following her deposition testimony. However, there was no evidence in the record to demonstrate that she had provided any warning of a potential lingual nerve injury and its impacts. The defense expert did not see a pathway to successfully defend the claim of lack of informed consent. A second expert reviewer reached the same conclusion.

Dr. A's attorneys had a candid discussion with her. Even if the malpractice claim could likely be effectively defended, the lack of informed consent claim could not. So, P would be entitled to a monetary award regardless of which, or both, of the claims went P's way in the eyes of a jury. Dr. A agreed to have her attorneys seek to settle the claim, to be paid by the malpractice carrier, which they did. As part of the settlement agreement, Dr. A would personally return to P the amount his mother paid her for the co-pay.

Takeaways

While it is impossible to know whether P would have sought an attorney at some point to file an action on his behalf based upon the substantive dental issues, it is quite clear that the issue which drove the initial attorney involvement was the billed, and eventually paid, co-pay amount. There is then perhaps a bit of irony that the money that Dr. A was unwilling to waive directly led to a settled malpractice claim, but that insisted-upon co-pay not only started the legal action steps but was also ultimately paid by Dr. A out-of-pocket. Dr. A made the decision to demand a disputed amount of money, and that decision likely cost her far more — particularly with her being dropped from a panel — than had she acquiesced in the first place. It is not our role here to advise dentists as to whether they should fervently go after unpaid, disputed fees. Instead, we demonstrate a situation where doing so ended up causing more harm than benefit. Food for thought.

Experience teaches that lay jurors might not always understand scientific, dental facts, sometimes making their determinations counter to what experts and attorneys anticipate. On the other hand, issues relating to overbilling or upcoding are relatively straightforward for plaintiffs' attorneys to explain to jurors, and simple for them to understand. At times, jurors might put all else aside and render a verdict for a plaintiff if they do not see the defendant-dentist as having been honest. Such is a version of jury nullification, with the jury members substituting what they deem critical in place of what the law says is critical. Taking subjectivity of that type out of the hands of juries increases a defendant's chances for success.

This case study exemplifies how the trigger for a patient seeking legal counsel might have nothing at all to do with the quality of dentistry. Yes, dentistry is complex, and there is an ever-present unpredictability factor, so ideal results do not happen with every procedure, with every patient. What need not be complex are matters over which dentists and their staff members have full control — such matters can virtually always be taken out of the equation as to what starts the legal ball rolling.

Finally, we briefly address the coding of procedures for billing purposes. The ADA and perhaps other associations provide numerical codes for dental procedures, which state the procedure performed and which often serve as the basis for which payment is sought and made. With few exceptions — such as 7241 for full impactions with unusual surgical complications, or time under sedation/general anesthesia, as examples — procedure codes do not take into account the length of time required to complete or the difficulty in doing so. To upcode to a procedure not actually performed, for a higher fee, is to invite a host of problems, including the initiation of a malpractice lawsuit or Dental Board complaint.

Summary of takeaways

A signed consent form alone is not enough — patients should also be verbally informed of all risks, benefits and alternatives associated with a procedure, by way of back and forth conversations, and those discussions should be thoroughly documented.
Billing disputes and inaccurate procedure coding can damage patient trust and may become the catalyst for malpractice claims.
Upcoding procedures can result in payer disputes, loss of network participation, regulatory concerns, and increased legal exposure.

Dentists will learn how sedation missteps can lead to a malpractice claim and Dental Board action. This case highlights why understanding state sedation requirements, assessing patient risk, and preparing for emergencies are essential to managing malpractice risk.

Key concepts

Dentist sued after unpermitted sedation led to a medical emergency
Dental Board action tied to state sedation permit requirements
Why patient risk factors matter before providing sedation

Underlying facts

K was a 47-year-old man, who has been an asthmatic for all of his life. His medication regimen has changed over the years — to include, at times, corticosteroids, biologics, and rescue inhalers. At the time of his subject series of visits with Dr. F, K's long-time general dentist, he reported taking daily steroids and an occasional need for the inhaler, with asthmatic flare-ups not uncommon. K had skipped seeing any dentist for some time, so Dr. F found 3 carious lesions in the left posterior for which endodontic care was indicated, and he advised his patient of exactly that.

For some reason, K explained, he had developed a fear of dentistry, the reason he had stayed away, and the prospect of root canal therapy, in 3 teeth, was daunting. Dr. F told his patient that, while he does not often do so, he would prescribe an oral sedative to be taken shortly before each of the 3 procedures, as an adjunct to nitrous oxide/oxygen ("laughing gas") given through a nasal hood. K agreed to try that approach, and filled the prescription given to him.

Just before being driven to the dental office on a relatively humid day by his young adult daughter, K took 2 of the tablets — rather than one, as prescribed — and arrived in a surprisingly relaxed state. When Dr. F peeked into the waiting room, he asked "did you take the medication?" "Yes I did." K was soon seated by Dr. F's assistant, who placed the hood and dialed in N2O/O2 at 5 liters per minute and a 70%/30% ratio, all of which was Dr. F's custom.

When Dr. F entered the treatment room, he briefly made small talk with K before delivering a mandibular block and infiltration. K winced and became visibly upset, which led to his beginning to show difficulty in air exchange. Dr. F asked the assistant for a pulse oximeter, but it could not be located. Dr. F switched the gas flow to 100% oxygen, but he had no means of delivering it with positive pressure. K deteriorated, with his lips becoming bluish, and his respiratory efforts becoming more and more futile. The receptionist heard the commotion, came to see what was happening, and called 911; EMS came 17 minutes later, by which time K was breathing poorly and minimally conscious. With telephone instructions from an emergency department physician, a paramedic started an IV line and injected a muscle relaxant while an EMT squeezed oxygen through an Ambu bag, slowly raising the O2 saturation from 73% to 92%.

K was transported to the hospital, where he was admitted for 4 days, undergoing a complete pulmonology work-up and medication regimen modification. K was left with large ambulance and hospital bills, for which no health insurance was in place, owing to his being new to his current job, which he could not attend for another 2 weeks, unpaid.

Legal steps taken

Intimidated by the amount of money he owed, K sought legal advice, and was counseled that suing Dr. F might cover his expenses and lost earnings, as well as money to compensate him for his physical and emotional injuries. The newly retained attorney obtained copies of the records from Dr. F, the ambulance, and the hospital, and sent them to dental and internal medicine experts for their input. The dental expert knew that dentists in that State were required to obtain a permit for providing sedation at any level, including orally, with predicates to obtaining the permit being (1) an office assessment by 2 dentists from the State Dental Board, to assure that resuscitation equipment and drugs were available and functional, as well as (2) basic life support certification for the dentist and at least 1 present staff member (or ACLS for the dentist for deeper levels of sedation), and (3) doctoral or post-doctoral training in sedation techniques. Dr. F was not aware of any of these requirements, so, as the dental expert found on publicly available platforms, Dr. F had never applied for a permit; in fact, neither he nor any staff member was current with BLS certification.

In addition to filing a dental malpractice lawsuit against Dr. F, K, with his lawyer's help, filed a Dental Board complaint. In his response to the complaint, one of the arguments posed by the attorneys provided to Dr. F by his malpractice insurer was that Dr. F had not intended to do more than simply "take the edge off,” and it was K's own action, by taking a higher medication dose than prescribed, that led to a deeper level of sedation and the apparent laryngospasm that flowed from that. The Board was unmoved: the statute set out strict requirements, for any level of sedation, with the dose provided by Dr. F falling into that category; Dr. F had violated that statute. The Board levied monetary sanctions and a stayed 6-month suspension from practice.

The Board's findings and actions, which would likely make their way to a trial jury in that jurisdiction, made the malpractice defense a steep uphill battle. A settlement followed, compensating K for both economic (medical costs, lost income) and non-economic ("pain and suffering") damages.

Takeaways

The old adage that "ignorance of the law is no excuse" clearly applies here. While dentists are not expected to have the degree of understanding of laws that lawyers do, they are expected to know and abide by the parameters of their State's Dental Practice Act; there is simply no getting around that. With this is mind, had the case proceeded to trial, it is foreseeable to believe that a legal principle known as negligence per se would have come into play: in basic terms, when a person violates a statute which is intended to protect the public safety, and that violation causes an injury, there is essentially a presumption of negligence/malpractice. Here, Dr. F's failure to obtain the needed permit is quite readily argued to have caused K's injuries, based upon the facts that his training was inadequate and his resuscitative inventory was lacking, leading directly to the inability to protect K's safety. Legally, negligence per se provides what amounts to a short cut for plaintiffs, yet one which is avoidable.

Readers might wonder whether K's own improper action, namely taking twice the prescribed dose, could have alleviated Dr. F's liability, or at least a portion of it. The answer is maybe. When a settlement is made, as it was here, all of the potential legal arguments go away. But if the litigation had proceeded, and depending upon the State and locality involved, a jury might have been able to consider K's impropriety and reduce, or even possibly eliminate, Dr. F's liability. Taking that approach at trial is viewed by some lawyers as risky because jurors might see it as trying to blame the victim; but that does not mean that such a tactic does not ever occur, because it most certainly does. It ends up as a judgment call on trial strategy, left for lawyers to discuss with their clients, with a typical risk-benefit analysis playing a major role.

An issue underlying the facts in this case is the existing medical condition of K, as of the time of the procedure. He was a known, disclosed asthmatic, whose various medication regimens signaled a significant level of disease. Most practitioners would likely agree that such patients pose a higher risk profile when it comes to sedation, to any degree, such that a host of factors need to be considered beyond the "usual.” In terms of strict ASA classification, K would be viewed — based solely on his asthma condition — as a Class II (if the asthma was judged to be well controlled with management of it on an as-needed basis) or Class III (if the asthma was viewed as not being well controlled, with frequent episodes and constant treatment required) patient. Of course, there is subjectivity involved with assigning patients into these groups, but objective assessments ought to be used to guide the conclusion.

Finally, we address a defense that Dr. F raised with the Board, namely the level of sedation that was intended for K, rather than the one achieved. In some States, that difference might be determinative, but in the State of Dr. F's practice, that difference was irrelevant. Either way, it is a universal given that dose X of drug Y will necessarily produce different sedative results in different patients, even if nominally but potentially largely so; dentists are prudent to realize that sedative end points are unpredictable, that patients might become more deeply sedated than intended, that patients might have side effects generally associated with the deeper level, and that the dentist must be appropriately trained and otherwise prepared to handle even low likelihood, but severe, risk manifestations. There is often little room for error when a patient's state of consciousness is altered.

Summary of takeaways

Dentists are expected to know and follow their state’s sedation requirements.
Patient-specific risk factors can increase sedation-related liability.
Sedation outcomes can be unpredictable, so emergency readiness is essential.

[post_title] => How Unpermitted Sedation Led to a Dental Malpractice Claim [post_excerpt] => [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => how-unpermitted-sedation-led-to-a-dental-malpractice-claim [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2026-07-30 11:16:44 [post_modified_gmt] => 2026-07-30 15:16:44 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://medprodental.com/?p=10667 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw ) [2] => WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 10633 [post_author] => 180159412 [post_date] => 2026-06-08 15:18:38 [post_date_gmt] => 2026-06-08 19:18:38 [post_content] =>

In this real-life case study, dentists will learn how a swallowed crown can quickly become a patient safety event and lead to a malpractice claim. See why prevention, timely follow-up, and patient communication are essential aspects of reducing risk.

Key Concepts

Swallowed crown led to malpractice lawsuit
Preventive steps to reduce swallow or aspiration risk
Compassionate communication and risk management

Background facts

E, a 64-year-old man who was markedly obese with type II diabetes and atrial fibrillation, presented for the insertion visit of a PFM crown on his upper right second molar, tooth #2. Getting to that point had been far from easy for both E and Dr. M, owing to limited opening ability and an excess of facial soft tissue. Preparation for the crown and impressioning had each taken a full visit for the very same reasons. Suffice it to say, as Dr. M later did, there was very little room to work in E's mouth. No local anesthesia was given for this visit; as Dr. M placed the crown for what would be the final try-in, his finger incidentally made contact with E's soft palate, causing him to gag and unexpectedly move forcefully, which then caused the crown to slip out of Dr. M's wet gloved hand, and out of sight. Dr. M, an experienced practitioner nearing the end of his career, who liked to work "solo", called an assistant into the room to suction the oropharynx of the supine patient, with the hope of finding the crown tucked into a tissue fold. The crown was not found.

Dr. M explained that he would need to take another impression because the crown had "slipped behind the mouth"; he did just that over the next hour. As E was being dismissed, Dr. M said that the crown will work its way down the intestines, to be voided in the stool: E should inspect his stool over the following few days, to the extent reasonable, but he shouldn't overly worry about it. E left the office, expecting to return in 10 days for the new crown to be inserted.

On the fourth day after this visit, E noticed that his stool was blood-tinged, so he called Dr. M to learn whether that might be related to the dropped crown, but Dr. M did not think so. He did, though, advise E to speak with his primary care physician if things worsened or even remained the same. The stool got redder toward the end of the week, so, that Sunday, he appeared at an urgent care center, where, upon hearing about the dental crown incident, the physician ordered an abdominal series of radiographs, which located the crown, appearing to be stuck in place at a sharp bend in E's colon. Arrangements were made for E to have a colonoscopy the following morning at a local hospital, where E was admitted for the night.

Under deep sedation, a gastroenterologist removed the crown from the colon by using a grabbing instrument. When the crown was examined after removal, the gastroenterologist reasoned that the metal edge of the crown that projected below the porcelain portion — the margin — had likely dug its way just a small amount into a fold in the wall of the colon, preventing it from moving beyond that point to be expelled. Because of E's underlying medical conditions, he was kept in the hospital until the next day, at which time he was discharged without any problems or complications.

Legal action

Although E was willing to let the situation end without any further action, his wife was particularly annoyed about the hospital, anesthesiology, and gastroenterology fees, which were not covered by E's high-deductible medical insurance policy, as well as what she viewed as Dr. M's lack of caring, as demonstrated by his having never followed up with E about what had occurred.

An attorney was brought on board to sue Dr. M for dental malpractice, so that the out-of-pocket costs and a sum for pain and suffering could be recovered. The attorney's first step was to contact Dr. M's malpractice carrier, specifically its regional claims consultant. When all records were obtained and reviewed, the claims consultant explained to Dr. M that a supportive defense expert was unable to be located, even by a local defense attorney, so that a liability defense could not be mounted, other than by way of Dr. M acting as his own liability expert.

Dr. M realized that this was far from an ideal approach, so he agreed to attempts to settle the case, which was accomplished for a relatively modest amount of money.

Takeaways

Under the best of circumstances, maintaining a grip on small objects placed in the mouth, using wet gloves, is fraught with the risk of losing control of the object — here a crown. When treatment is performed in the back of the mouth, that risk is magnified, and when the patient's anatomy makes the working space smaller than usual, the risk further increases. Adding to that, the gravitational considerations of a supine (rather than upright) patient maximize the likelihood of a dropped object being swallowed or aspirated. Each of these "weak points" can generally be mitigated: oropharyngeal packs are placed to try to physically block the backward and downward path, particularly when rubber dam cannot be used; working with a watchful, suctioning chairside assistant provides extra hands, extra eyes and extra protective devices; and seating a patient in as upright a position as possible can mean the difference between a dropped object falling harmlessly into the floor of mouth where it is easily retrievable, and a swallow/aspiration event.

Any and every time that an object is placed into the mouth, or one becomes free-floating in the mouth, and cannot be accounted for, it should be assumed to have been swallowed or aspirated unless proven otherwise, generally by radiographic evidence either way. As a general rule, the sooner the patient is able to be placed into the care of medical colleagues for locating and treating, the less the ramifications will be. That does not necessarily mean that dental procedures must always be stopped in their tracks, but it does mean that, as soon as it is safe for the patient to move on for definitive care, the better off they will usually be. Because physicians are often less than fully aware of dental materials and instruments, it is helpful to them if a photo example, or actual example, is provided to the patient to pass on to their physicians, so that they know exactly what they are looking to locate.

Two considerations which quite often lead patients to seek legal advice are unexpected and unreimbursed costs, and a perception that their dentist did not truly care about them, particularly when things did not go as planned. The former is unpredictable, and it ended up here as one of the main drivers toward legal action, but the latter can almost always be avoided. Prompt and repeated follow-up communication, by the dentist, rather than an office staff member, with patients; and demonstrating a genuine interest in patients, as people and not only "receivers of dentistry"; can go a long way toward heading off involvement of lawyers.

Not all patients and not all similar procedures are the same, whether because of underlying medical issues, patient anatomy, patient size, patient attitudes, or limited mobility. So, a one-size-fits-all approach is rarely, if ever, a helpful treatment mindset to adopt.

Finally, we address the circumstance here, where no liability expert could be found to help to defend Dr. M. While not very common in the defense of dental malpractice claims, it does occasionally pop up. In most, if not all, jurisdictions, dentists are legally permitted to serve as their own experts. But in the eyes of jurors, that is often a difficult sell. In this situation, as well as all other litigation-related issues, dentists are counseled by their defense attorneys, whether the news is easy to hear, or not.

Summary of takeaways:

Take an objective, measured approach to patient communication
Avoid criticizing prior care without full context
Maintain thorough documentation to support care decisions

[post_title] => How a Dropped Crown Led to a Malpractice Lawsuit [post_excerpt] => [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => how-a-dropped-crown-led-to-a-malpractice-lawsuit [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2026-06-10 06:35:05 [post_modified_gmt] => 2026-06-10 10:35:05 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://medprodental.com/?p=10633 [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] => 10718 [post_author] => 180159417 [post_date] => 2026-08-17 02:07:45 [post_date_gmt] => 2026-08-17 06:07:45 [post_content] =>

Key concepts

Dentist sued after a billing dispute and nerve injury
How informed consent gaps can increase malpractice risk
Why accurate coding and patient communication matter

Background facts

Legal action

Takeaways

Summary of takeaways

A signed consent form alone is not enough — patients should also be verbally informed of all risks, benefits and alternatives associated with a procedure, by way of back and forth conversations, and those discussions should be thoroughly documented.
Billing disputes and inaccurate procedure coding can damage patient trust and may become the catalyst for malpractice claims.
Upcoding procedures can result in payer disputes, loss of network participation, regulatory concerns, and increased legal exposure.

[post_title] => Billing Dispute and Consent Issues Lead to Malpractice Lawsuit [post_excerpt] => [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => billing-dispute-and-consent-issues-lead-to-malpractice-lawsuit [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2026-08-27 12:28:03 [post_modified_gmt] => 2026-08-27 16:28:03 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://medprodental.com/?p=10718 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw ) [comment_count] => 0 [current_comment] => -1 [found_posts] => 84 [max_num_pages] => 28 [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] => 1 [is_tag] => [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] => cd30b8010ad4402f7f175df6d0125f89 [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:8308f3297007bfd0154abc1d41cf5721 )

Additional Risk Tips content

Billing Dispute and Consent Issues Lead to Malpractice Lawsuit

See how a billing dispute, upcoding concerns, and informed consent gaps led to a dental malpractice lawsuit and costly legal consequences.

How Unpermitted Sedation Led to a Dental Malpractice Claim

This dental malpractice case study shows how unpermitted sedation, patient risk factors, and emergency preparedness gaps led to a claim and Dental Board action.

How a Dropped Crown Led to a Malpractice Lawsuit

A dropped crown became a malpractice claim. Learn how prevention, follow-up, and patient communication can help reduce dental risk.

This document does not constitute legal or medical advice and should not be construed as rules or establishing a standard of care. Because the facts applicable to your situation may vary, or the laws applicable in your jurisdiction may differ, please contact your 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.

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.