Court Opinion

ID: 9591330
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 00:03:38.153035+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:01:09.759734
License: Public Domain

Beasley, Judge
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from Division 1.
Before closing arguments, and after a hearing considering the matter outside the presence of the jury, the court instructed the jury: “ . . . the only area of things that you will consider is whether the events which occurred on September 8th, the day the tooth was extracted, whether any of these events constituted professional negligence. You will not be concerned with whether there was any negligence in the follow-up care subsequent to September the 8th.”
One of the factual issues left in the case was whether or not the treating dentist failed to examine, and if necessary, reconstruct the extracted tooth after he pulled it, to assure that all of it and its contiguous parts such as amalgam was removed. It was testified to, and admitted, that failure to do so would constitute negligence. Plaintiff said he did not examine the tooth but just left it on the tray and left the room, and she never saw him again that day or when she came back later. There was also evidence that if examination revealed a missing part, a visual examination of the socket would have to be done and if the missing part was not found, an x-ray would be necessary. The patient testified that the dentist did not examine the socket. He could not remember whether he examined the extracted tooth but that he usually did so.
The doctor who discovered the problem immediately by x-ray several weeks later testified that because he did not see the pre-opera-tive x-ray nor the tooth itself when extracted, he could not say for *404certain that the foreign body (amalgam) which he removed from the socket came from the extracted tooth. However, he did testify that there was a “high probability” that it did and further, there was a “high probability,” the “greatest probability,” that this amalgam got into the socket immediately after the extraction on September 8. He also testified that if the tooth had been examined and reconstructed, and this piece of amalgam was missing from it, it would be seen by the examining dentist, who had the pre-operative x-ray to compare it with. There was also evidence that if one were looking in the socket for a missing part, it might not be seen because of the bleeding and the subsequent clot which would cover it, unless that were removed, and if it were known that a part was missing and could not be seen, an x-ray should be taken, because the missing piece would have to be removed. Although the doctor who detected the embedded amalgam by way of x-ray testified that he would not immediately x-ray the patient who came with a problem such as plaintiff went back to defendant with, this was based on his earlier testimony that he would have examined the tooth upon extraction and so would know that no parts of it were missing. He further testified that if problems develop for the patient and he had a suspicion or worry that a foreign body was in the socket, x-rays would be done and would reveal it; in fact, x-rays did reveal it in this case. The evidence also showed that the foreign body was causing her pain and infection, that after he removed it, the symptoms left within a week. Plaintiff had testified that the extracting dentist did not see her when she went back repeatedly, although she asked for him since he had done the initial extraction, and that she was denied x-rays although she had repeatedly asked for the same because she knew something was wrong.
Thus, although her expert was not asked the full and correct hypothetical, that is, whether the standard of care would require the same dentist to examine his patient when the patient came back repeatedly with pain and problems following extraction, and whether the standard of care would require x-ray if the extracting dentist had not examined the tooth upon extraction or could not remember having done so. There is, I believe, sufficient evidence for the jury to draw such a conclusion, based on all of the evidence as to what did occur, together with the expert’s opinion, and I believe that it should have been allowed to consider the issue.
The jury’s not finding negligence on September 8 does not conclusively establish that it found the tooth had been properly examined. It could have found that it was examined and the missing amalgam did not appear. That would not foreclose its finding, if allowed to consider the issue, that when the patient returned, she should have been permitted to see the same doctor, who, if he could not then remember whether he examined the tooth or not, should *405have taken an x-ray at that point which, as it appears, would have revealed the foreign body embedded.
Decided March 14, 1985
Rehearing denied March 29, 1985
Richard E. Reiter, Jr., Jay W. Bouldin, for appellants.
Walter B. McClelland, for appellee.