Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Medico Legal Consideration

Risk Management of Temporomandibular Joint Therapy

  • Chapter
Contemporary Management of Temporomandibular Disorders

  • 776 Accesses

Abstract

As is always the case, patient needs are the priority. Risk management involves implementing strategies for patient care. Risk management strategies reduce the possibility of an adverse outcome, injury, or loss. Good risk management improves the quality of patient care and decreases the probability of poor treatment results or a medical malpractice claim. Such strategies include identifying risks, minimizing those risks, and reducing the impact of injury or loss when untoward outcomes do occur.

The hazards of not preparing for potential treatment complications will have significant long-term effects. Neglecting to have a comprehensive risk management plan in place can compromise patient care, increase liability risks, result in financial losses, and bring about licensing board issues and even potential criminal charges. Many patient risks can be reduced by adequate training of doctors and staff and by encouraging strong communication among the staff members, doctor, and patient.

  • Identify the essential elements of a professional negligence claim and some defenses.

  • Comply with mandatory state and federal regulations.

  • Understand the duties, process, and benefits of obtaining informed consent and informed refusal.

  • Adequate record keeping including electronic records, ownership of records, patient access to data, and confidentiality laws.

  • When complications do occur, how to sympathetically handle them, the quality of the doctor-patient contact, and the protection of apology laws.

  • Avoid inadvertently creating liability with promises, warranties, and guarantees.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Eugene D. Robin et al., Cultural Lag and the Hippocratic Oath, 345 Lancet 1422 (1995).

  2. 2.

    JN Kent et al., Pilot Studies of a Porous Implant in Dentistry and Oral Surgery, 30 J. Oral Surg. 608 (1972); EC Heinds et al., Use of Biocompatible Interface for Binding Tissues and Prosthesis in Temporomandibular Joint Surgery, 38 Oral Surg. Oral Med. Oral Pathol. 512 (1974).

  3. 3.

    Kaplan PA, Tu HK, Williams SM. Erosive Arthritis of the Temporomandibular Joint Caused by Teflon-Proplast Implants: Plain Film Features, Am. J. Roentgenol 1988; 151:337–340.

  4. 4.

    L. Lagrotteria et al., Patient with Lymphadenopathy Following Temporomandibular Joint Arthroplasty with Proplast, 4 Cranio. 172 (1986).

  5. 5.

    Lypka M, Yamashita DR. Exuberant Foreign Body Giant Cell Reaction to a Teflon/Proplast Temporomandibular Joint Implant: Report of a Case, J. Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 2007; Vol. 65, 9:1680–1684.

  6. 6.

    Sanders et al., Long-Term Study of Temporomandibular Joint Surgery with Alloplastic Implants Compared with Non-Implant Surgery and Non-Surgical Rehabilitation for Painful Temporomandibular Joint Disc Displacements, J. Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 1400 (2002).

  7. 7.

    4 Witkin, Summary of California Law, 8th Ed., page 2778.

  8. 8.

    Hanson v. Grode, (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 601, 606.

  9. 9.

    Atienza v. Taub (1987) 194 Cal.App.3d 388, 391.

  10. 10.

    CACI 505; McKinney v. Nash (1981) 174 Cal.Rptr. 642, 649.

  11. 11.

    Sanchez v. Rodriquez (1964) 226 Cal.2d 439, 449.

  12. 12.

    McKinney v. Nash (1981) 120 Cal.App.3d 428. See also Custudio v. Bauer (1967) 251 Cal.App.2d 303 (unless doctor guaranteed sterility, no breach of warranty claim for pregnancy following a tubal ligation).

  13. 13.

    CACI 506; Meier v. Ross General Hospital (1968) 69 Cal.2d 420, 434.

  14. 14.

    Barton v. Owen (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 484, 502.

  15. 15.

    Landeros v. Flood (1976) 17 Cal.3d 399, 410.

  16. 16.

    Bromme v. Pavitt (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 1487, 1493; Jones v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp. (1985) 163 Cal.App.3d 396, 402.

  17. 17.

    CACI 500. MacDonald v. United States 767 F. Supp. 1295 (M.D. Pa. 1991).

  18. 18.

    Bermuderz v. Ciolek (2015) 237 Cal.App. 4th 1311, 1328; California Civ.Code § 3359.

  19. 19.

    Budd v. Nixen, (1971) 6 Cal.3d 195, 200; CACI 500; CACI 3960.

  20. 20.

    For example, in California the statute of limitations is 1 or 3 years depending upon the facts of the case. California Code of Civil Procedure Section 340.5. In South Dakota the statute of limitations is 2 years. South Dakota Codified Laws Section 15-2-14.1.

  21. 21.

    A minority of states, such as Arizona and Washington, have failed to enact tort reform legislation for medical malpractice civil actions.

  22. 22.

    For example, California has a cap of $250,000.00 for general damages. California Civil Code Section 3333.2(b). In South Dakota the general damages cap is double California’s at $500,000.00. South Dakota Codified Laws Section 21-3-11.

  23. 23.

    California Civil Code Section 3333.2(b); South Dakota Codified Laws Section 21-3-12.

  24. 24.

    Business & Professions Code § 1682(e). There are exceptions for nitrous oxide sedation and oral medication sedation, Business & Professions Code § 1647.1.

  25. 25.

    Cobbs v. Grant (1972) 8 Cal. 229.

  26. 26.

    The Cobbs court in its wisdom stated:

    Subjectively he may believe so, with the 20/20 vision of hindsight, but we doubt that justice will be served by placing the physician in jeopardy of the patient’s bitterness and disillusionment. Thus, an objective test is preferable: i.e., what would a prudent person in the patient’s position have decided if adequately informed of all significant perils. Id. at 245.

  27. 27.

    The standard set forth in Cobbs is as follows:

    First, the patient’s interest in information does not extend to a lengthy polysyllabic discourse in all possible complications. A mini-course in medical science is not required; the patient is concerned with the risk of death or bodily harm, and problems of recuperation.

    Second, there is no physician’s duty to discuss the relatively minor risk inherent in common procedures, when it is common knowledge that such risk inherent in the procedure are of low incidence. Id. at 244.

  28. 28.

    A [dentist] must explain the risks of refusing a procedure in language that the patient can understanding and give the patient as much information as [he/she] needs to make an informed decision, including any risk that a reasonable person would consider important in deciding not to have [a/an] [specific medical procedure]. The patient must be told about any risk of death or serious injury or significant potential complications that may occur if the procedure is refused. A [dentist] is not required to explain minor risks that are not likely to occur. CACI No. 534 (June 2016 Edition).

  29. 29.

    Plaintiff claims that defendant [dentist] was negligent because [he/she] did not fully inform plaintiff about the risks of refusing the [specific medical procedure]. To establish this claim, plaintiff must prove all of the following:

    1. 1.

      That defendant [dentist] did not perform the procedure on plaintiff;

    2. 2.

      That defendant [dentist] did not fully inform plaintiff about the risks of refusing the [specific medical procedure];

    3. 3.

      That a reasonable person in plaintiff’s position would have agreed to the [specific medical procedure] if he or she had been fully informed about these risks; and

    4. 4.

      That plaintiff was harmed by the failure to have the [specific medical procedure] performed.

    CACI No. 535 (June 2016 Edition).

  30. 30.

    Jones v. Chidester, 610 A.2d 964, 969 (Pa. 1992).

  31. 31.

    Meier v. Ross General Hospital, 445 P.2d 519, 529 (Cal. 1968).

  32. 32.

    Bowman v. Woods, IG, Greene, 441 (Iowa 1848).

  33. 33.

    Pattern v. Wiggin, 51 Me. 594 (1862).

  34. 34.

    Ennis v. Banks, 164 P. 58 (Wahs. 1917).

  35. 35.

    Majetich v. Westin (1969) 276 Cal.App.2d 216.

  36. 36.

    Swanson v. Hood, 170 P. 135 (Wash. 1918).

  37. 37.

    Remley v. Plummer, 79 Pa. Super. 117, 123 (1922).

  38. 38.

    Jones, 610 A.2d at 966.

  39. 39.

    Borja v. Phoenix Gen. Hosp., 727 P.2d 355, 357 (Ariz. 1986); Schwab v. Tolley, 345 So.2d 747, 753 (Fla. 1977); Olson v. Weitz, 221 P.2d 537, 538 (Wash. 1950); Hood v. Phillips, 554 S.W.2d 160 (1977).

  40. 40.

    Jones, 610 A.2d at 969.

  41. 41.

    Majetich v. Westin, 690 P.2d 726 (Cal.App. 1969).

  42. 42.

    Dr. Stephen Cohen, et al., PATHWAYS TO THE PULP, 9th Edition, 270–271; 370; 441–442 (2006).

  43. 43.

    For instance, California CACI 506; Wisconsin Finley v. Culligan, 548 N.W.2d 854, 860 (Wis. 1996); Louisiana McCoy v. Calamia, 653 So.2d 763 (La. App. 1995); Iowa Peters v. Vander Kooj, 494 N.W.2d 708, 712 (Iowa 1993); Arkansas Rickett v. Hayes, 511 S.W.2d 187, 195 (Ark. 1974); Missouri Ladish v. Gordon, 879 S.W.2d 623, 632 (Mo. App. 1994); Connecticut Wasfi v. Maceluch, 588 A.2d 204, 209 (Conn. 1991).

  44. 44.

    Barton v. Owen (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 484, 502–504.

  45. 45.

    Tesauro v. Perrige, 650 A.2d 1079, 1083 (Pa. Super. 1994); Bonavitacola v. Cluver, 619 A.2d 1363, 1369 (Pa. Super. 1993).

  46. 46.

    Mathis v. Morrissey (1992) 11 Cal.App.4th 332, 344.

  47. 47.

    Parris v. Sands (1993) 21 Cal.App.4th 187.

  48. 48.

    For example, California Health & Safety Code Sections 123105 and 11,191 and California Business & Professions Code Section 1683.

  49. 49.

    Deeb G, et al. Is Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Always Necessary for Dental Implant Placement, J. Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Feb. 2017; Vol. 75, 2:285–289.

  50. 50.

    California Business & Professions Code Section 1680(u).

  51. 51.

    States with Apology Laws:

    • Colorado Revised Statute 13-25-135 (2003)

    • Oregon Rev. Stat. 677.082 (2003)

    • Massachusetts ALM GL ch.233, 23D (1986)

    • Texas Civil Prac and Rem Code 18.061(1999)

    • California Evidence Code 1160 (2000)

    • Florida Stat 90.4026 (2001)

    • Washington Rev. Code Wash 5.66.010 (2002)

    • Tennessee Evid Rule 409.1(2003)

    • Ohio ORC Ann 2317.43 (2004)

    • Georgia Title 24 Code GA Annotated 24-3-37.1 (2005)

    • Wyoming Wyo. Stat. Ann. 1-1-130

    • Oklahoma 63 OKL. St. 1-1708.1H (2004)

    • Maryland MD Court & Judicial Proceedings Code Ann. 10-920 (2004)

    • North Carolina General Stat. 8C-1, Rule 413

    • Hawaii HRS Sec.626-1 (2006)

    • Maine MRSA tit. 2908 (2005)

    • South Dakota Codified Laws 19-12-14 (2005)

    • West Virginia 55-7-11a (2005)

    • Illinois Public Act 094-0677 Sec. 8-1901, 735 ILL. Comp. Stat. 5/8-1901 (2005)

    • Arizona A.R.S. 12-2605 (2005)

    • Louisiana R.S. 13:3715.5 (2005)

    • Missouri Mo. Ann. Stat. 538.229 (2005)

    • New Hampshire RSA 507-E:4 (2005)

    • Connecticut Public Act No. 05-275 Sec.9(2005) amended (2006) Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. 52-184d

    • Virginia Code of Virginia 8.01-52.1 (2005)

    • Vermont S 198 Sec. 1. 12 V.S.A. 1912 (2006)Montana Code Ann.26-1-814 (Mont. 2005)

    • South Carolina Ch.1, Title19 Code of Laws 1976, 19-1-190 (2006)

    • Delaware Del. Code Ann. Tit. 10, 4318 (2006)

    • Indiana Ind. Code Ann. 34-43.5-1-1 to 34-43.5-1-5

    • Idaho Title 9 Evidence Code Chapter 2 0.9–0.207

    • Iowa HF 2716 (2006)

    • Nebraska Neb. Laws L.B. 373 (2007)

    • Utah Code Ann. 78-14-18 (2006)

    • North Dakota ND H.B. 1333 (2007).

  52. 52.

    The idea of commercial free speech was first introduced in Valentine v. Chrestensen, 316 U.S. 52 (1942).

  53. 53.

    Bigow v. Virginia, 412 U.S. 809 (1975); Bolger v. Youngs Drug Products Corp., 463 U.S. 60 (1983).

  54. 54.

    AAID, et al. v. Parker, et al., No. 16-50157 (5th Cir. 2017); Bingham v. Hamilton, 100 F.Supp.2d 1233 (E.D. Cal. 2000); Potts v. Hamilton, 334 F.Supp.2d 1206 (E.D. Cal. 20040).

  55. 55.

    84 N.H. 114, 146 A. 641 (N.H. 1929).

  56. 56.

    Depenbrok v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan (1978) 79 Cal.3d 167.

  57. 57.

    McGee v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.

    United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, 53 F.2d 953 (1931).

  58. 58.

    Richard Hunderfund, MAGIC, MYTHS AND MEDICINE, 71–73 (1980).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Bradley, Curley, Barrabee & Kowalski, P.C., Larkspur, CA, USA

    Michael Kowalski

Authors
  1. Michael Kowalski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael Kowalski .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, San Francisco VA Health Care System, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA

    S. Thaddeus Connelly  & Rebeka G. Silva  & 

  2. Private Practice, Dental Implant and Oral Surgery of San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA

    S. Thaddeus Connelly  & Rebeka G. Silva  & 

  3. Department of Biomedical Sciences for Health, Functional Anatomy Research Center (FARC), Universita degli Studi di Milano, Functional Anatomy Research Center, Milano, Italy

    Gianluca Martino Tartaglia

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Kowalski, M. (2019). Medico Legal Consideration. In: Connelly, S.T., Tartaglia, G.M., Silva, R.G. (eds) Contemporary Management of Temporomandibular Disorders. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99915-9_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99915-9_2

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-99914-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-99915-9

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation