Articles Posted in Dental Malpractice

Many of the dental nerve injuries which our Georgia clients suffer from are permanent. At trial, Plaintiff is qualified to testify that she does not foresee her pain and impairment ever resolving. In other words, that she does believes that her injury is permanent and is asking the jury to award damages to compensate her for the permanent injury caused by the dental malpractice.

Legal support for this is found in many prior Georgia cases., such as the following Georgia appellate court decision: Stephen W. Brown Radiology Associates v. Gowers, 278 S.E.2d 653, 157 Ga.App. 770 (Ga. App., 1981). 

The court did not err in charging on pain and suffering, future medical expenses, and elements of pain and suffering such as “deformity or unnatural condition.” Nor did the court err in charging the age-old expression that the jury was authorized to accept plaintiff’s own testimony regarding his injuries and suffering in preference to the evidence of a whole college of physicians.” See Great A. & P. Tea Co. v. Dupee, 71 Ga.App. 148(2), 153, 30 S.E.2d 365; Southern R. Co. v. Petway, 7 Ga.App. 659(1), 67 S.E. 886; Southern R. Co. v. Tankersley, 3 Ga.App. 548, 60 S.E. 297; Wolfson v. Rumble, 121 Ga.App. 549(2), 174 S.E.2d 469.

In 2005, the Republicans in Georgia, lead by the Republican Governor tried to rob the Georgia citizens of its right to a fair and impartial jury trial by, among other things, placing a limit on the amount of non-economic damages that can be awarded in medical malpractice cases. The thinly veiled reason: to stop frivolous medical malpractice lawsuit. Can anyone reading this really argue that placing a limit on damages when someone is severely injured by medical negligence is a recipe to stop frivolous lawsuits? No. The real reason and the real effect of this type of proposed tort reform is just another governmental grab to take away our freedom as jurors and for the government elitists to tell us what a catastrophic injury is worth. Why? For the Republicans, to help out the powerful insurance companies by limiting their exposure to large verdicts when, for instance someone is rendered a quadriplegic from malpractice or when a little boy loses his legs when the medical providers fail to detect a fast growing tumor despite his parents bringing him to the doctors because or clear sign and symptoms of this type of tumor. Thankfully, the Georgia Supreme Court overturned the limits on damages in these situations because it was clearly unconstitutional. Undeterred, the Republicans are trying to help out the big insurance companies by seeking to pass similar legislation on the federal level. In addition to being discriminatory and based on nothing more than “talking points” which don’t stand up when examined closely, the proposed federal tort reform violates one of the GOP’s stated basic tenets of minimal federal government intervention on state’s rights. Of course, when they see an opportunity to, once again, bail out the powerful insurance companies, the Republicans who are pushing this ill-advised legislation simply ignore state’s rights.

Paul Bland writes the following article which is compelling and points out the hypocrisy of the latest “tort reform” by Republican legislatures, this time on the federal level. Paul Bland is executive director of Public Justice, a national public interest law firm that pursues high-impact lawsuits to combat social and economic injustice, protect the Earth’s sustainability and challenge predatory corporate conduct and government abuses.

The GOP has long had the brand of being the party of states’ rights and minimalist federal government — it’s no wonder that Paul Ryan has been thinking about sending Medicaid back to the states since he was in college. Indeed, one of the reasons cited by House Republican leadership in the battle over the American Health Care Act for why Medicaid funding should be distributed to states in block grants with fewer federal requirements is that it empowers states to design Medicaid programs that meet each particular state’s needs.

I am looking at a case for a woman who has tongue cancer which appears to have not been treated appropriately by her general dentist, either prior to the diagnosis or after it. The standard of care for dentistry mandates that a general dentist properly screen every patient for oral cancer, especially during a “routine cleaning.” 

Who gets oral cancer?:

Short answer, men are twice as likely than women to contract oral cancer. Men who use snuff of chewing tobacco are 50 times more likely to contact oral cancer. Heavy users of alcohol are also more likely to contact oral cancer during their lifetime, However, this is not the end of the inquiry, as it should be noted that 25% of those who get oral cancer are not men and drink alcohol only occasionally. This is why dentists must screen all patients for oral cancer.

The number of multi-practice dental practices (that is dental practices that have a number of locations and that are run by an administrative group rather than a single dentist) is growing nation-wide and in also Georgia. Some of the largest dental practice management companies are, with the approximate number of locations in parenthesis: Aspen Dental (over 240 locations), Great Expression (over 180 locations), Dental One Partners (over 150 locations), Coast Dental (over 100 locations), Clear Choice Dental Implant Centers (over 34 locations) and Mini Implant Centers of America (over 17 locations). Many of these organizations have a large presence in Georgia and the metropolitan Atlanta area. While dentists are professionals who have a code of ethics, many critics of the large, multi-location dental management practices that are sometimes owned by aggressive investment funds, charge that these practice are encouraged to put profit over safety and patient satisfaction in order to meet the bottom line numbers set by the practice. If true, this translates into complaints by patients of sloppy dentistry, the performance of unnecessary procedures, high bills, and low patient satisfaction.

While every case is different, dental patients should make sure that they are comfortable with the dentist who is providing the service to them (not just the practice). Care should also be given to utilizing captive specialists (dental specialists who are in-house with the large dental practice vs. a specialist who is independent of the practice). Dental specialists such as oral surgeons, endodontists, and periodontists are often involved when the care and treatment requires complicated extractions (usually partially and fully impacted wisdom teeth), root canals, and the installation of dental implants. As an Atlanta dental malpractice attorney, these are the specialty areas that I see involved in a great number of dental malpractice cases that my firm handles. Not only that, but these specialties, in my expert opinion, seem to cause the most severe injuries when they commit dental malpractice. This is why it is so important to get all the facts and make an informed decision about who is going to conduct the dental procedure on you, in addition to knowing the reputation of the dental practice. After all, the quality of the treatment you receive is going be directly related to the skills, qualifications and experience of the dental professional rendering the services.

Robert J. Fleming has been handling wrongful death cases, dental malpractice, bus accidents, car accident cases and premises injury cases for individuals and families who have been harmed, injured or died as a result of the carelessness or negligence of another for more than 20 years. He practices in and around the Atlanta, Georgia area including handling lawsuits in Fulton, DeKalb, Clayton, Gwinnett, Cobb and other counties and nearby cities including Alpharetta, Austell, Avondale Estates, Chamblee, College Park, Conyers, Duluth, Decatur, Doraville, Hapeville, Johns Creek, Jonesboro, Lawrenceville, Norcross, Peachtree City, Riverdale, Roswell, Sandy Springs, Stone Mountain, and Smyrna. If you have been seriously injured and would like discuss your case in complete confidence, contact Robert J. Fleming directly on (404) 525-5150 or contact us online.

According to a recent article, a husband and wife told detectives in Florida that they were introduced to a man by a mutual friend and that in later social interactions the man told them he was a dentist and had a dental practice in South Carolina before moving to Florida. The couple said they paid the man cash and that he had offered to do the work from home to keep costs low. However, when he extracted the wife’s tooth and left leaving a tooth fragment (or root tip) behind, causing her medical complications, the couple began their own research and soon discovered that the man was not a dentist. The couple also told detectives about another potential patient they had introduced to the man before knowing he wasn’t a dentist. When detectives met with that patient, they told police that the man had pulled about 10 teeth without anesthetic for him and made him dentures. According to the article, the man accused of posing as a licensed dentist was contacted by a detective, working undercover, and also arranged to meet him for dental work, according to investigators.

While these patients apparently did not use much investigative prowess in selecting their dentist, it is important for you to choose your dentist wisely. The best method is to talk with friends and other people who you trust (such as your attorney, or better yet an attorney such as Robert J. Fleming, who regularly handles dental malpractice claims) and get recommendations for dentists that these people have direct knowledge of. Care should be taken to select a dentist who is competent in the procedure for which you need care. Extractions, root canals, dental implants and other procedures are complex and only a general dentist who is trained in and skilled in the specific procedure should be chosen. Better yet, choose a specialist who has additional training and experience in the area that you need dental work in. For instance, a complex extraction might best be performed by a skilled oral surgeon rather than you general dentist; a complicated root canal with curved roots might best be performed by an Endodontist who has experience with these types of root canals and so on. Why: Because many of the procedures require expertise and can easily end up causing dental injuries due to malpractice if performed by a dentist who does not have the training, experience and skill to perform the procedure according to the standard of care.

Attorney Robert J. Fleming has been handling dental malpractice and medical malpractice lawsuits for individuals and families who have been harmed, injured or died as a result of the carelessness or negligence of another for more than 20 years in and around Atlanta, Georgia and its surrounding areas, including Alpharetta, Austell, Avondale Estates, Chamblee, College Park, Conyers, Duluth, Decatur, Doraville, Hapeville, Johns Creek, Jonesboro, Lawrenceville, Norcross, Peachtree City, Riverdale, Roswell, Sandy Springs, Stone Mountain, and Smyrna. If you have been seriously injured and would like quality legal representation, contact Robert J. Fleming directly on (404) 525-5150 or contact us online.

There are many incidents of dental malpractice. According to a recent article, a lack of protocol to ensure sterilization has lead to numerous cases of bacterial heart infections and one death. The dental board investigated three initial reports of bacterial endocarditis, a type of heart infection, after a physician at the local Medical Center noticed that two patients had contracted the unusual disease and had one thing in common — both had been treated by the same dentist. The dental board did not suspend the dentist, but rather it ordered him to improve his infection prevention protocols.  Apparently, the dental board is continuing its investigation of the matter and further action could be taken against the negligent dentist. This is highly likely considering there are a total of 15 people who have suffered greatly due to the lack of proper standards and protocols at this dental practice.

According to the article, an inspection of the dentist’s office revealed clear violations of the dental standard of case such as the use of a single use vial of Propofol for more than one use; pre-filled syringes of medication; expired vials and multi-dose vials of medication; non-sterile preparation of instruments and poor documentation of medication units. These types of infractions are apparent from the records kept by the practice and were probably uncovered after a thorough investigation and multiple interviews with the dentist and his staff.

Bacterial endocarditis is extremely rare and can be fatal. Often, the victim must undergo heart surgery and/or lengthy medication protocol to recover from the condition. In this particular case, the dentist who committed the malpractice would be liable to all of the patients who sustained injuries and damages. In order to recover for dental malpractice in Georgia, the Plaintiff must show that the dentist committed malpractice; that the malpractice caused the plaintiff’s injuries and the amount of damages, which usually consists of past and future medical bills, lost wages and pain and suffering. In order to file dental malpractice lawsuit, the plaintiff’s attorney must attach an affidavit from a dental expert who regularly practices in the filed of dentistry in questions and which lists at least one act of dental malpractice which caused or substantially contributed to the injuries that the plaintiff is complaining of in the lawsuit.

According to a recent BBC News and Health article, which analyzed a study in the British Dental Journal, approximately 1% of dental implant procedures performed each year result in nerve injuries. Dentists should improve care before and after implant surgery, the study says. A dental implant is an artificial tooth root, which is screw or cylinder-shaped, that is placed into the jaw to hold a replacement tooth or bridge. Dental implants are generally used if someone has lost a tooth or teeth due to disease or injury. The type of nerve injury which can be caused by implant surgery has increased in recent years alongside a rise in implant surgery. Approximately 10,000 lower jaw implant procedures are performed each year in the UK and in 2007, 30% of all nerve injuries cause by dental work were associated with implants. This contrasts with 10% in 1997. This is almost certainly due to the increased acceptance and usage of dental implants after extractions.  The King’s College London research team found that these injuries could have a significant impact on people’s quality of life with more than half of the 30 patients participating in the research suffering from constant pain or discomfort after surgery and 40% complaining of numbness. 30% of the implant injury patients reported psychological problems, including four who were diagnosed with depression. Most of the injuries revolved around the trigeminal nerves such as the inferior alveolar nerve, the mental nerve and the lingual nerve.

70% of the 30 patients were referred to a nerve specialist more than 6 months after surgery, despite evidence showing that removing implants soon after surgery reduces the risk of permanent damage. In addition, a referral after 6 months reduces the likelihood that the nerve specialist will be able to properly diagnose and surgically repair the injured nerve, if that is the course of treatment that is warranted. If the micro-neurosurgeon determines that the best course of treatment is surgical repair, the surgery must be performed as soon as possible. In other words, the longer the injury goes untreated, the less likely that the surgical repair will be successful. Many times, the dentist who caused the nerve injury is reluctant to refer the injured patient to a specialist and this is below the standard of care to not timely refer a patient with a dental nerve injury to a nerve specialist. However, the proper course of treatment is to refer the patient out in a timely manner and to have continuity of treatment.

Attorney Robert J. Fleming has been handling wrongful death cases, automobile accident cases, personal injury cases, dental malpractice and medical malpractice lawsuits for individuals and families who have been harmed, injured or died as a result of the carelessness or negligence of another for more than 20 years in and around Atlanta, Georgia and its surrounding areas, including Alpharetta, Austell, Avondale Estates, Chamblee, College Park, Conyers, Duluth, Decatur, Doraville, Hapeville, Johns Creek, Jonesboro, Lawrenceville, Norcross, Peachtree City, Riverdale, Roswell, Sandy Springs, Stone Mountain, and Smyrna. If you have been seriously injured and would like quality legal representation, contact Robert J. Fleming directly on (404) 525-5150 or contact us online.

According to the American Association of Endodontists, root canal treatment is necessary when the pulp, the soft tissue inside the root canal, becomes inflamed or infected. The inflammation or infection can have a variety of causes: deep tooth decay, repeated dental procedures on the same tooth which are not successful, or a crack or chip in the tooth which widens and/or deepens over time to the point that the pulp of the tooth is affected. A traumatic injury to a tooth may also cause pulp damage even if the tooth looks fine on the outside. If pulp inflammation or infection is left untreated, it can cause pain or lead to an abscess.

Endodontic treatment typically consists of the following steps:

1. The dentist who is performing the root canal therapy examines and x-rays the tooth, then administers local anesthetic to numb the area and tooth that is to be worked on. After the tooth is numb, the dentist places a small protective sheet called a “dental dam” over the area to isolate the tooth and keep it clean and free of saliva during the procedure.   

If an injured dental patient seeks a lawyer on legal web sites such as avvo.com, dental malpractice usually falls under a sub-heading of medical malpractice. This is certainly the case, and there are a number of dental procedures that commonly lead to dental malpractice claims, among them are: Root canal therapy, dental implants and puncturing the sinus cavity during a number of procedures in the upper jaw.

In order to pursue a dental malpractice case, and affidavit of an expert is required to be filed with the lawsuit in most jurisdictions. This is the same requirement as medical malpractice cases. The filing of the affidavit with the complaint necessitates that an expert in the field review the case and provide and opinion in the form of an affidavit that the treatment rendered in the case was below the standard of care. The standard of care for dentists and doctors is that they must exercise such reasonable care and skill for their patients as, under similar conditions and like surrounding circumstances, is ordinarily employed by the dental or medical profession generally. This is investigated by reviewing the treaters records, radiographs and other related information in order to determine the level of care provided by the potential defendant. The reviewing expert must have been regularly engaged in practice or teaching three of the past five years in the same area of practice or specialty, with sufficient frequency to establish an appropriate level of knowledge, as determined by the trial judge, in performing the same procedure, diagnosing the condition or rendering the treatment which is alleged to have been performed or rendered negligently by the defendant. In most cases, there is no grace period for filing the expert affidavit after the suit is filed. If there is no malpractice affidavit, the suit will be dismissed.

As discussed above, the standard of care must be violated during the procedures and care in order for there to be a case to pursue. In other words, simply because an injury occurred, does not mean there is malpractice. However, in most instance, the expert review will determine if there was malpractice and whether the malpractice caused he injury. Since dental malpractice is a form a medical malpractice, it follows that in order to pursue such claims, the injuries complained of must be extensive and permanent.