|
|
|
NSDP Risk Management Resources - Newsletters
|
 |
 |
|
The following information is available to NSDP members only.
If you are a Dentist's Advantage customer and a NSDP member,
you may register to access this information or login if you
are already registered: |
|
New Users - Register
Returning Users - Login
|
|
| NSDP Risk Management Newsletter - Volume 26. No. 4 |
| First, a few words about the subject of Vicarious Liability. It is defined as substituting an innocent party liable to an individual injured by the negligence of another. The party that committed the negligent act may be declared free of liability. Vicarious Liability may play a major rule in assigning liability in partnership dental practice. |
|
| NSDP Risk Management Newsletter - Volume 26. No. 3 |
| Dr. Brown decides to retire from practice. He finds a buyer of his practice, Dr. Greene. In addition to selling his equipment and
supplies, and for Dr. Greene to assume his office lease, Dr. Greene agrees to purchase Dr. Brown practice by turning over his
active patient list and their records. He also agrees to send a letter to each of his active patients informing them of his decision to
retire. Included in the letter he recommends that his patients continue their care with Dr. Greene, to whom he will transfer their
records unless they wish a copy be sent to another dentist or themselves. All goes well, and Dr. Greene now has all the original
records of the active patients treated by Dr. Brown, except those that were sent to other dentists or directly to the patients
themselves. |
|
| NSDP Risk Management Newsletter - Volume 26. No. 2 |
| In the previous issue of this Newsletter, the article, The Statute of Repose, appeared. In this issue of the Newsletter, a report of a
dental malpractice case was decided by a court in Michigan in which the Statute of Repose played an important part as did
fraudulent concealment. The problem with our reporting the case at this time is that the only article that appeared in the
Newsletter with fraudulent concealment was written in Volume 16, No. 1 10 years ago. To fully understand the decision in the
Michigan case, I believe it is necessary to reprint the original fraudulent concealment article. Many new members of the
National Society of Dental Practitioners never had the opportunity to read the Newsletter published 10 years ago, and for those
original members, the reprint of the article will serve as a refresher. And so, here it is in its entirety. I will include the report of
the Michigan Case in the next issue of the Newsletter. |
|
| NSDP Risk Management Newsletter - Volume 26. No. 1 |
| There comes a time in every dental practice when it is in the best interest of both the patient and the dentist
that the dentist end the doctor-patient relationship despite the fact that the patient wishes to continue the
relationship and the treatment has not been completed. It is not enough to instruct the staff to refuse to give
the patient an appointment, or even to tell the patient that you no longer wish to continue their care. There are specific legal rules on how to
go about discontinuing care of a patient without running the risk of abandoning the patient. This article will provide you with the rules and
apply them to office practice. But first some fundamental introductory information about the doctor-patient relationship. |
|
| NSDP Risk Management Newsletter - Volume 25, No. 4 |
| It can be so inviting, simple to do and who would know? Let us begin with a hypothetical case. A patient
claims that she was never informed that during the process of root canal treatment, the tip of an instrument
broke and was left by the dentist, Dr. A, to remain in the canal. When the treatment was completed, at her last
visit she inquired of the dentist if all went well during the procedure. In his answer he did not inform the
patient of the untoward event the fracture of an instrument tip that he was unable to remove from the canal.
Several years later the patient was under treatment by another dentist. She complained of pain and discomfort in the area of the root canal
tooth, and was informed of the remaining instrument tip and the services required to correct the problem. On discovery, she sued her former
dentist, Dr. A, for malpractice and fraudulent concealment, both within the respective statute of limitations. When Dr. A received the suit
papers and the request for his records, on their review he entered a note on a blank space on the record, atient informed of the fractured
instrument tip ....If this alteration is discovered there will be no defense of the claim.
What follows are three cases of altered records. In all three what the defendant dentist did was similar to the actions in the hypothetical case
described above. Also, the same malpractice insurance company was involved in cases 1 and 2, fictionalized for the purpose of this article as
Company ABC. |
|
| NSDP Risk Management Newsletter - Volume 25, No. 3 |
| Decisions of appellate courts set precedent law, and for physicians and dentists they establish standards of care for the professions. These "old" decisions of appellate courts are of major importance to dentists. When recent decisions are made by lower or jury trials they do not establish precedent law that contributes to establish standards of care for the profession. To give dentists some insight into what happens at jury trials, if a case is decided by a lower court that does not follow the decision and opinion of an appellate court in the jurisdiction, and the case is appealed the decision of the lower court will be reversed. But if the lower court decision is not appealed the decision of the lower court will stand, even if its decision is opposed to the decision of the appellate court. So, the recent cases, most of which follow precedent law add nothing to the standards of care to which dentists are held. The rule for lower courts to follow decisions of appellate courts in their jurisdiction is called "Stare Decisis." |
|
| NSDP Risk Management Newsletter - Volume 25, No. 2 |
| Should You, in Your Role of a Dentist, Render Assistance to an Injured
Person at the Scene of an Accident?
1) Are you required to? No, except (see below).
2) Morally? You should.
3) Legally? There are some risks if you do or don.
1) Are you required to? American tort law has rarely, if ever, recognized or imposed a
duty obligating citizens to render emergency assistance to others, even when doing
so would create little or no risk for the volunteer. Only Vermont and Minnesota.
require a person to render emergency assistance. |
|
| NSDP Risk Management Newsletter - Volume 25, No. 1 |
| Introducing Margaret Surowka Rossi, J.D. At the last meeting of the Board of Directors of the National Society of Dental
Practitioners, Ms. Rossi was elected to membership. Her membership on the Board and
the National Society of Dental Practitioners, and Dentist Advantage is a major step in
increasing the risk management services and support we offer our members. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| NSDP Risk Management Newsletter - Volume 23, No. 2 |
| Are You Required to Appear in Court for a Patient?
By simply having treated or examined a patient you may be asked by
the patient to testify in court; an unpleasant experience, particularly
if you have never appeared in court. |
|
|
|
|
Dentist's Advantage is a division of Affinity Insurance Services, Inc.
|
|
|
|
