Select Page

We entrust our lives and our oral health to a dental practitioner for the reason that we want to improve our oral health. As an individual, we seek the best care from a dentist. What if a dentist fails to do his responsibilities and is being accused of negligence? If this happens, a dental attorney will be a great help and is a good defense against such cases.

On or around June 30, 2016, an unsophisticated patient of limited financial means scheduled a same-day emergency appointment at the dentist’s dental office in Pasadena, Texas due to pain in tooth 18. Another dentist, examined the patient and prepared a comprehensive treatment plan which included four quadrants of periodontal scaling and root planning, “other drugs by the report,” surgical extraction of teeth 4 and 18, bone graft at site of tooth 18, crown, build-ups, and rest seats for teeth 20, 29, and 31.

On or around September 23, 2016, an additional treatment plan for osseous surgery was prepared.

The dentist treated the patient on July 12, August 3, August 18, September 7, September 20, and September 23, 2016.

On or around August 18, 2018, the dentist materially altered the patient’s treatment plan without obtaining the patient’s informed consent. Indeed, the original treatment plan approved by the patient in writing on June 30, 2016, was for a removable partial denture replacing teeth 18, 19, 30, with rest seats on crowns restoring teeth 20, 29, 31. However, on or around August 18, 2016, the dentist changed the treatment plan to a fixed bridge from tooth 29- 31, replacing tooth 30. The patient did not give informed consent for this new and costlier treatment plan. Furthermore, since the patient elected not to be receiving a removable partial denture, the rest seat that Respondent placed on tooth 20 on August 18, 2016, was completely unnecessary and improper, making it evident that the treatment plan was altered without the patient’s informed consent.

On or around August 18, 2016, the dentist performed and/or billed the patient for a core buildup of tooth 29. However, this procedure was unnecessary as the condition of tooth 29 did not require a core buildup prior to the placement of a crown.

On or around September 23, 2016, the dentist performed and/or billed the patient for osseous surgery on four or more contiguous teeth or tooth bounded spaces per quadrant.

However, this costly procedure was unnecessary as only one tooth, tooth 18, and required attention.

Indeed, tooth 18 was extracted on or around July 5, 2016, and, subsequently, when the patient complained of pain on the lingual side of tooth 18, the dentist noticed a sharp bony area on or around September 20, 2016, and recommended surgery if the pain persisted.

As a result, the dentist was subject to disciplinary action due to negligence, in which the dentist materially changed a patient’s treatment plan without obtaining the patient’s informed consent. And also the dentist committed repeated acts of negligence in the diagnosis, treatment planning, and care of a patient.

The dentist’s mistakes show that there’s negligence which became the basis of the Board’s decision to discipline him as well as his dental license.

The case would have yielded a different result if the dentist was able to hire a dental attorney. So if you also have the same cases or concerns, it’s best to contact Dental Attorney Yong J. An, for further details. You may contact him at (832) 428-5679 to get a schedule for confidential consultation.