In the field of dentistry, where precision is the standard of care, things can sometimes go terribly wrong. What happens when a routine procedure turns into a dental nightmare, and the patient’s only recourse is the California legal system? In such cases, patients can pursue legal action through a professional negligence lawsuit—commonly referred to as dental malpractice.
Dental malpractice isn’t just legal jargon—it’s a serious allegation of professional negligence at the core of dental accountability. In California, these cases are more than simple disputes; they involve rigorous examinations of professional standards, expert testimony, and the nuanced evaluation of dental records, x-rays and other forms of evidence.
Another way to describe dental malpractice is professional negligence by a licensed dental professional. Although professional negligence shares key elements with ordinary negligence, CACI (California Civil Jury Instructions) clarifies that in dental malpractice cases, the term “dental” or “professional” is added to “negligence” to highlight the special standards involved.
When you make a dental malpractice claim in California, you must prove that the dental professional was negligent. According to CACI instruction number 500, a dentist has a duty to provide the care expected of a reasonably careful dentist licensed in California. Jurors, who usually are not dental experts, will rely on expert witnesses during the trial to understand the accepted standards of care.
Thus, a dentist is negligent if he or she fails to use the level of skill, knowledge, and care in diagnosis and treatment that a reasonably careful dentist would use in similar circumstances.
Every licensed dental professional—from dentists and dental hygienists to registered dental assistants—bears a significant responsibility when performing dental work. Their licenses represent a commitment to adhere to a standard of care that protects patients from preventable harm.
In California, dental malpractice claims hinge on a key legal standard: proving that a dental professional failed to provide the level of care that a reasonable, careful dentist would have provided under similar circumstances. This isn’t about punishing honest mistakes; it’s about maintaining the integrity of dental practice and compensating patients for preventable harm. For example, dental professionals must take proper precautions to avoid complications like root canal overfills—a potentially avoidable error that can damage surrounding tissue and nerves.
A dental malpractice claim does not allege that care was less than perfect, but rather that it fell below the standard of reasonable care. In other words, did the dental professional:
If the answer to any of these questions is “no,” and that negligence directly caused injury, a legal case may be warranted.
In a dental malpractice trial, the plaintiff (injured patient) must demonstrate that their injury was caused by the dental professional’s negligence. This requires proving two types of causation:
Both must be shown for the plaintiff to succeed in a malpractice claim.
Actual Cause means something that produces an effect or result, also known as the “but-for” cause. The cause-in-fact requirement is satisfied if it is more likely than not that the defendant’s conduct contributed to the outcome the plaintiff seeks to attribute to the defendant. For example, if a dentist negligently drills too deep into the inferior alveolar nerve canal, injuring the inferior alveolar nerve, that conduct is the actual cause of the patient’s harm.
A person is considered responsible for the probable consequences of his or her act. However, Proximate Cause, or legal cause, does not refer to factual causation at all; instead, it addresses the appropriate scope of responsibility for injuries already caused by negligent conduct.
To illustrate with a famous example (often explained as “no duty toward unforeseeable plaintiffs”), Palsgraf v. Long Island R. Co. involved a situation in which Ms. Palsgraf was standing on a platform of the defendant’s railroad after buying a ticket. A train stopped at the station, bound for another place. Two men ran forward to catch it. One of the men reached the platform of the car without mishap, though the train was already moving. The other man, carrying a package, jumped aboard the car but seemed unsteady, as if about to fall. A guard on the car, who had held the door open, reached forward to help him in, and another guard on the platform pushed him from behind. In this act, the package—about fifteen inches long and wrapped in a newspaper—was dislodged and fell upon the rails. Unbeknownst to anyone, it contained fireworks, and when it fell, they exploded. The shock of the explosion knocked over scales many feet away at the other end of the platform, which struck the Ms. Palsgraf and caused her injuries. The court found the railroad was not liable because the harm to Ms. Palsgraf was not within the scope of foreseeable risk.
By contrast, as an example, if a dental professional fails to disinfect the dental water lines, causing a patient to contract an infection, that type of harm is entirely foreseeable from contaminated water. Thus, the chain of events clearly illustrates proximate (legal) cause.
Taking legal action can be daunting, and you might wonder if it’s worth it. The good news is that financial compensation in a negligence case is not plucked out of thin air. Under California law, there is a somewhat structured process for measuring the harm done by dental malpractice and compensating the victim. The amount you may be entitled to depends on two categories known as general damages and special damages.
In a dental malpractice jury trial, you will see:
Basic Steps in a Civil Jury Trial
One cornerstone of a dental malpractice case is the concept of “dental or medical probability.” The plaintiff must show it is more likely true than not (greater than 50%) that the defendant’s negligent actions caused his or her injury. This standard is known as the preponderance of the evidence. In contrast, criminal cases require proof “beyond a reasonable doubt,” which is a much higher burden of proof.
Behind every dental malpractice case is a patient who trusted a professional with their health, only to experience unexpected, potentially devastating consequences. These lawsuits aren’t just about obtaining financial compensation; they are also about accountability and preventing future harm.
A jury trial empowers ordinary citizens to see that justice is done and proper compensation is awarded. The jury’s role is to act as the “finder of fact.”
California’s approach to dental malpractice is a delicate balance—protecting patients while acknowledging the inherent complexities of dental practice. It’s a system that demands scientific rigor, legal precision, and compassion for those whose trust in a dental professional has been undermined.
For both patients and practitioners, understanding this legal landscape is crucial. It’s not about casting blame; it’s about maintaining the highest standards of professional care—one careful procedure at a time.