Dentist and Professional liability Flashcards
Encompasses all possible civil liability that a professional can incur as a result of professional acts
PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY
It is preferred over the term “malpractice” because the latter carries some negative evertones
PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY
a tort liability - when applied to the dental profession
Negligence
negligence is called
malpractice
the doing of some act which a reasonable and prudent dentist would not do, or the failure to do some act which such a person should or would do
Negligence
__________, or more appropriately __________, is the type of claim which a victim has available to him or her to redress a wrong committed by a dentist which has caused bodily harm
Malpractice
dental negligence
simply means performance or doing of an act
Feasance
the performing of an act that is wholly wrongful and unlawful
Malfeasance
the improper performance of some lawful act
Misfeasance
is the failure to do something that should have been done
Nonfeasance
Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties
quasi-delict
are civil wrongs that are done to clients
Torts
in civil cases or tort actions, the person who is filing the suit seeks compensation for damages he feels he suffered as result of the action or activity in question; in the Philippines, torts are referred to as
quasi-delicts
When a person is guilty of ____________, he or she is guilty of an act or failure to act
Culpa aquiliana
exists when the dentist-patient relationship has been established
DUTY
Neglectful of Obligation
DERELICT
proof of dereliction, or proof of negligence of an obligation; the breach of professional duties of skill and care, or their improper performance
DERELICT
causation which is divided into two inquiries: whether the actions in fact caused the harm and whether these were the proximate cause of the injury
DIRECT CAUSE
injury results from want of due care or skill; dentists may be held answerable in damages for negligence
DAMAGES
The burden of proving each of the four elements of negligence is on the plaintiff
PROXIMATE CAUSE
Failure to prove any one of the elements may result in dismissal of the case
PROXIMATE CAUSE
The most common rule is the reasonable person rule
STANDARDS OF PRACTICE
the written or verbal evidence given by a qualified expert in an area
Expert Witness
like textbooks, journal articles, etc. published by national organizations such as the PDA
Documentary Evidence
“the thing or the transaction speaks for itself”
DOCTRINE OF RES IPSA LOQUITOR
the thing which caused the injury complained of is shown to be under the management of the defendant or his servants and the accident is such as in ordinary course of things does not happen of those who have its management or control use proper care, it affords reasonable evidence, in the absence of explanation by the defendant, that the accident arose from or
was caused by the defendant’s want of care
DOCTRINE OF RES IPSA LOQUITOR
Requisites of res Ipsa Loquitor
- The accident is of a kind which ordinarily does not occur in the absence of someone’s negligence
- It is caused by an instrumentality within the exclusive control of the defendant/s
- The possibility of contributing conduct which would make the plaintiff responsible is eliminated
If the dentist, after a prolonged treatment of a patient which normally produces alleviation of the condition, fails to investigate non-response may be held liable if in the exercise of the care and diligence he could have discovered the cause
of non-response
DOCTRINE OF CONTINUING NEGLIGENCE
Usually applied to foreign body cases, improper setting of broken bones, in the application of cast, and in wrongful diagnosis
DOCTRINE OF CONTINUING NEGLIGENCE
Anyone who voluntarily assumes the risk of injury from a known danger, if injured, is barred from recover
DOCTRINE OF ASSUMPTION OF RISK
This is based upon a maxim “violent non fit injuria”, which means that a person who assents and injured is not regarded in law to be injured, edicted upon knowledge and consent
DOCTRINE OF ASSUMPTION OF RISK
A dentist cannot be liable for negligence if the injury sustained by a patient is on account of unforeseen conditions
But, a dentist who fails to ascertain to condition of the patient for want of the requisite skills and training is answerable for the injury sustained by the patient if injury resulted thereto
DOCTRINE OF FORSEEABILITY
It provides that if an employee was injured on account of the negligence of his fellow employee, the employer cannot be held liable
FELLOW SERVANT DOCTRINE
Any person who, in good faith, renders emergency medical care or assistance to an injured person at the scene of the accident or other emergency without the expectation of receiving or intending to receive compensation from such injured person for such service, shall not be liable in civil damages for any act or omission, not constituting gross negligence, in the course of such care or assistance
RESCUE DOCTRINE
Under the rule, the tortfeasors are joint and severally liable, meaning the plaintiff-patient can recover damages in full from either
DEEP POCKET RULE
Liability will be compensated by an adjudged person by the court; adjudge person will be a rich person or deep pocket person
DEEP POCKET RULE
Give examples of dental malpractice
- Nerve injuries
- Negligently completed crowns and bridges
- Failure to take patient’s relevant medical history
- Failure to detect oral cancer, periodontal disease, or other diseases
- Unnecessary extraction of multiple teeth
- Extraction of wrong teeth
