Facts: Plantiff Hans Leffler appealed the decision of a county court granting summary judgment in favor of defendants, Dr.John Burley and his company, for damages due to loss of a portion of his moustache. He alleged in his complaint that he noticed that a dime-sized portion of his moustache was missing immediately after his tooth extraction, thus causing him disfigurement, humiliation, medical costs and other damages.
Defendant Dr.Burley moved, which the court granted, for summary judgment on the ground that the claim was filed outside of the statute of limitations. On appeal, plaintiff contended
1) that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment because it assumed his complaint as a dental claim; and
2) that his claim could not have been a dental claim because Dr.Burley denied that the injury was caused during his treatment.
Issue: Whether or not plaintiff’s claim is a dental claim.
Held: The Appeals Court affirmed the decision of the trial court because a dental claim is required to be brought within one year after the cause of action accrues under the Ohio law. It cited Chapter 2305 of the Ohio Revised Code which defines dental claim as ‘ any civil action against a dentist, or against any employee or agent of a dentist, and that arises of a dental operation or the dental diagnosis or care, or treatment of any person’.
The terms ‘arising out of’ and ‘diagnosis, care or treatment’ are held to encompass all aspects of medical and dental claims that are ‘ancillary to and inherently necessary part’ of treatment. Medical or dental claims thus ‘include activities related to the care or treatment of a patient such as transportation, falls from recovery beds, and injuries due to instruments used in health care’.
As alleged in the complaint, the dime-size portion of the plaintiff’s moustache was negligently pulled out during the extraction of his tooth. Hence, it is a classic case of dental malpractice because the negligence occurred during the treatment. There is no ground to regard his cause of action in the complaint other than dental malpractice, such as breach of contract or battery. Medical malpractice ‘consists of professional misconduct of members of the medical profession and attorneys and may consist of either negligence or breach of contract. ‘It makes no difference in Ohio whether the professional misconduct is founded in tort or contract.
Moreover, even with Dr.Burley’s position that part of the moustache was not pulled out during the treatment, hence, the case falls within the ‘non-malpractice universe of the office,’ the Court said that plaintiff’s claim must fail because of his failure to allege any other type of negligence outside of dental practice.
Its not also proper to apply because he failed to allege any type of circumstances surrounding his injury and what instrumentality, other than the dental surgery, could have caused his mouthtache to varnish, in order to warrant an inference of negligence.
2. • Facts: Plantiff Hans Leffler appealed the decision of a county
court granting summary judgment in favor of defendants,
Dr.John Burley and his company, for damages due to loss of a
portion of his moustache. He alleged in his complaint that he
noticed that a dime-sized portion of his moustache was missing
immediately after his tooth extraction, thus causing him
disfigurement, humiliation, medical costs and other damages.
3. • Defendant Dr.Burley moved, which the court granted, for
summary judgment on the ground that the claim was filed
outside of the statute of limitations. On appeal, plaintiff
contended
• 1) that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment
because it assumed his complaint as a dental claim; and
• 2) that his claim could not have been a dental claim because
Dr.Burley denied that the injury was caused during his
treatment.
4. • Issue: Whether or not plaintiff’s claim is a dental claim.
• Held: The Appeals Court affirmed the decision of the trial court
because a dental claim is required to be brought within one year
after the cause of action accrues under the Ohio law. It cited
Chapter 2305 of the Ohio Revised Code which defines dental
claim as ‘ any civil action against a dentist, or against any
employee or agent of a dentist, and that arises of a dental
operation or the dental diagnosis or care, or treatment of any
person’.
5. • The terms ‘arising out of’ and ‘diagnosis, care or treatment’ are
held to encompass all aspects of medical and dental claims that
are ‘ancillary to and inherently necessary part’ of treatment.
Medical or dental claims thus ‘include activities related to the
care or treatment of a patient such as transportation, falls from
recovery beds, and injuries due to instruments used in health
care’.
6. • As alleged in the complaint, the dime-size portion of the
plaintiff’s moustache was negligently pulled out during the
extraction of his tooth. Hence, it is a classic case of dental
malpractice because the negligence occurred during the
treatment. There is no ground to regard his cause of action in
the complaint other than dental malpractice, such as breach of
contract or battery. Medical malpractice ‘consists of
professional misconduct of members of the medical profession
and attorneys and may consist of either negligence or breach of
contract. ‘It makes no difference in Ohio whether the
professional misconduct is founded in tort or contract.
7. • Moreover, even with Dr.Burley’s position that part of the
moustache was not pulled out during the treatment, hence, the
case falls within the ‘non-malpractice universe of the office,’ the
Court said that plaintiff’s claim must fail because of his failure to
allege any other type of negligence outside of dental practice.
• Its not also proper to apply because he failed to allege any type
of circumstances surrounding his injury and what
instrumentality, other than the dental surgery, could have
caused his mouthtache to varnish, in order to warrant an
inference of negligence.
