Atlanta Injury Lawyers Blog

Dental offices in Georgia, and dental practitioners are governed by the Georgia Drugs and Narcotics Agency, as well as medical facilities.

The following are tips shared by the Georgia Drugs and Narcotics Agency for dentists and physicians who must prescribe drugs.

1. Stamped signatures are not valid for any prescription issued in the State of Georgia. (Georgia Pharmacy Practice Act O.C.G.A 26-4-80(i)).

Recent reports indicate that Georgia is about to pass legislation to allow dental hygienists to work on patients without dentists present. Dental Association officials said in the past that they were concerned about the safety of patients, but they agreed to support the measure this year.

Under the legislation, dental hygienists would be allowed to do basic cleaning and preventive care in so-called “safety-net settings,” which would be qualified health centers, school-based health clinics and dental offices without a dentist present. While there certainly is a need for more access to dental care, the counter balancing concern is safety for these patients who will not be seen by board certified dentists. Since only about 25% of dentists who practice in Georgia accept Medicaid, this law may provide a low-cost way for the elderly and poor to find affordable preventative dental care in Georgia. However, which dental procedures will these hygienists be performing without supervision and what is the expected protocol if the patient is in need of emergency dental care. Or, more importantly, who will perform dental screenings to rule out serious and/or potential life-threatening conditions such as serious abscesses, oral cancer or tumors in the head, neck, gums or tongue.

As a practical matter, the work that hygienists perform now in dental offices is not actively overseen by dentists anyway. The hygienist performs the cleaning and then the dentist comes into the treatment room to inspect the results of the cleaning and perform and oral exam. Many times, the oral exam is the most important part of the process, especially with poor or elderly patients who may, due to a number of reasons, have a higher risk of cancer or other conditions that could be spotted by a thorough oral exam conducted by a board-certified dentist in Georgia.

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.