Dental malpractice could arise when it is stablished that the oral treatment or procedure falls below of care within the dental community. The burden of proof rests with the person suing for filing the claim. For the person the dental claim was filed or the dentist, his/her best defense aginst any legal action is to exercise due care and avoid any lawsuit against prevention. The dentist as a respondent in an administrative defendant in civil case or even as an accused in criminal case in court needs to prove his/her compliance with the standard of care and diligence required under the law. - This can be proven through a well documented intervention in the dental record or patient's chart properly outlining the dental procedures undertaken in the process of dental care or treatment. It is always better to make accurate recording of the oral treatment or procedure performed on the patient to clearly show clinical competence and skills and compliance with the standards of care. It is the duty of the court to look into the negligent conduct or act of the dentist to arrive at a decision in a dental malpractice case.

1. PRINCIPLES AND DOCTRINES
IN DENTAL MALPRACTICE
ACHIEVED BY: Dr.Maen Dawodi

2. PRINCIPLES AND DOCTRINES IN DENTAL
MALPRACTICE
- Dental malpractice could arise when it is stablished that the oral treatment
or procedure falls below of care within the dental community.
- The burden of proof rests with the person suing for filing the claim.
- For the person the dental claim was filed or the dentist, his/her best
defense aginst any legal action is to exercise due care and avoid any lawsuit
against prevention.

3. PRINCIPLES AND DOCTRINES IN DENTAL
MALPRACTICE
The dentist as a respondent in an administrative defendant in civil case or
even as an accused in criminal case in court needs to prove his/her
compliance with the standard of care and diligence required under the law.
- This can be proven through a well documented intervention in the dental
record or patient's chart properly outlining the dental procedures
undertaken in the process of dental care or treatment.

4. PRINCIPLES AND DOCTRINES IN DENTAL
MALPRACTICE
- It is always better to make accurate recording of the oral treatment
or procedure performed on the patient to clearly show clinical
competence and skills and compliance with the standards of care.
- It is the duty of the court to look into the negligent conduct or act of
the dentist to arrive at a decision in a dental malpractice case.

5. No The basic elements of dental malpractice action are
1 the defendant had a duty to conform to a particular standard of
conduct for the plaintiff's protection
2 the defendant's conduct failed to measure up to that standard
3 the defendant's conduct was the legal or proximate cause of the
damage sustained by the plaintiff

6. No Legal doctrines in dental Jurisprudence
1 Res ipsa loquitur
2 Respondent superior
3 Captain-of-the-ship doctrine
4 Informed Consent
5 Doctrine of force majeure
6 Charitable immunity & state immunity
7 Independent contractor doctrine
8 Dentist-as-a-witness rule
9 Doctrine of state decisis
10 Dentist Order

7. 1- Res ipsa loquitur
- Is the Latin term which is commonly used in negligence cases. It means
"the thing speaks for itself”
No When involved by the plaintiff, he or she has to prove four elements
1 The injury would not have occurred if someone were not negligent
2 the injury must be caused by something within the exclusive control of
the defendant
3 the injury must not have been due to any voluntary action of the plaintiff
4 the defendant is in better position to know what happened

8. no In most jurisdictions, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies if
1 the accident would not occur in the absence of negligence
2 the instrumentality causing injury was within the exclusive control of
the defendant
3 the plaintiff's voluntary or involuntary actions did not contribute to the
accident
1- Res ipsa loquitur

9. - For example, the dentist performed a root canal causing injury to the
patient because of certain act or omission.
- If it can be shown by looking into the evidence that there is negligence
and that it can be inferred that it would not have happened but for the
negligence of the dentist, then it is a res ipsa loquitur Under this maxim,
the judge is allowed to make the same inference that most of us would
make from our common experience.
1- Res ipsa loquitur

10. - Res ipsa loquitur is not a rule of law but merely describes a state of the
evidence from which it is possible to draw an inference of negligence.
- It is based on common with a noble purpose to enable justice to be served
when facts bearing on causation and the standard of care exercised are
unknown to the claimant but ought to be within the knowledge of the dentist.
1- Res ipsa loquitur

11. 2- Respondent superior
- Is an American doctrine whereby negligence of the employee is conclusively
presumed to the negligence of the employer
- It is a Latin phrase which literally means "let the master or superior answer “
or "let the principal answer for the acts of his/her agent” .
- It is a legal doctrine which means that the employer is responsible for his/her
employee's actions within the course of employment

12. - when it is applied to physical torts, an employer-employee relationship
must be established and the act complained of must be committed within
the scope of the function and in the course of employment.
- Under this theory, the employer (hospital or clinic) may be held liable for
the negligent act or omission of his/her employee (dentist, doctor or any
other health worker) if the employee was acting within the scope of his/her
employment when the negligent conduct occurred.
2- Respondent superior

13. - The doctrine of contributory negligence is a principle of law which
can be used to mitigate the liability of the dentist. It means that the
patient has make some voluntary actions or contributory conduct
that caused his/her injury.
- If appreciated by the court, the contributory negligence of the
patient mitigates the liability of the dentist and/ or the hospital/clinic.
2- Respondent superior

14. - If it can be proven that the accident is caused directly by the
patient's negligence or imprudence, he/she shall be solely
responsible for the consequences of his/her imprudence or
negligence that triggered his/her own harm or injury.
- In short as a general rule, the contributory negligence of a patient
is not a bar to recover lability for damages, especially if the
proximate cause of injury or death is the negligence of a dentist.
2- Respondent superior

15. - However it mitigates the dentist's liability when the
patient's wrongful act such as smoking after oral surgery
or taking prohibited drugs as advised as it could be taken
by the court as direct contributory cause of his her injury
2- Respondent superior

16. REFERENCES
• DENTAL JURISPRUDENCE BY RUSTICO BELEN

17. THANK YOU….