Can I file a Small Claim Complaint Against My Dentist?

A lot of people ask me whether they could pursue a small claims complaint against a dentist.  The answer to that is: “it really depends.”

If your claim is based upon negligence, that is the dentist did something wrong, the law requires you to use experts to support your claim.  When you consider the jurisdictional limit of small claims court ($6,000 in Ohio), the reality is you are likely going to be spending more money on experts than you would ever hope to recover.  Therefore, it is unwise to file a negligence action in small claims court.

If, however, your claim is based solely on contract – that is you paid for a product or service that was not delivered or rendered – filing a small claims complaint could bring about some semblance of justice.  But, if start to go over the line of quality of care, the court is going to require you to get an expert to support your claim.

If you have sustained an injury following a dental procedure, please contact Scott for a no cost, no obligation consultation and case evaluation.

Wrong Tooth Extraction

I often get questions from people who had the wrong tooth extracted, and they want to know whether or not they could pursue a claim.

Generally speaking, extracting the wrong tooth is a breach of care. That said, we still have to consider the damage component to determine whether a case merits filing a lawsuit. 

Perhaps extracting the wrong wisdom tooth –  which causes no further injury and requires no further treatment – is not going to raise to the level to justify filing a lawsuit. 

However, if it is one of your anterior teeth (your front teeth).  Or if in the case of a juvenile where treatment is then altered or delayed until the minor stops growing. Or if during the wrong extraction, the dentist causes further harm or damage.  Maybe in those cases, it would merit pursuing a lawsuit.

Every case is different and it's important to evaluate each case based upon its own facts

If you have sustained an injury following a dental procedure, please contact Scott for a no cost, no obligation consultation and case evaluation.

Dental Implant Failure

I often get questions from people who have gone through a dental implant procedure but then the implant fails, and they want to know whether they could pursue a claim.

Dental implants can fail for a variety of reasons but the most common, and preventable, are infection and bone loss.

Peri-implantitis is a type of infection surrounding the implant and inside the gums. It can lead to bone loss and certainly implant failure. Prompt recognition and treatment can improve success.

It is also possible that the implant just simply does not integrate with your jaw bone. This is common for people who have low bone density or otherwise suffer some type of trauma following the implant procedure. In these cases, bone grafts may improve overall success.

If you have sustained an injury following a dental procedure, please contact Scott for a no cost, no obligation consultation and case evaluation.

Root Canal Injury - Broken Endodontic Files

I often get questions from people following a root canal procedure where an endodontic file broke off and remained inside their tooth.  Naturally, they want know whether or not they can pursue a claim.

Broken endodontic file are a risk and complication of root canal therapy.  The prognosis of a tooth with a separated instrument really to depends on the extent of what is undebrided or unobturated in the canal below the separated instrument; particularly, if it can not be bypassed or removed.

There is some indication that there is no difference between a tooth that has been debrided and obturated with gutta percha and sealant versus a tooth that has gutta percha, sealant, and a separated instrument.  In fact, the tooth can last some time.

If you have sustained an injury following a dental procedure, please contact Scott for a no cost, no obligation consultation and case evaluation.

Dental Infection Injury

I often get questions from people who have developed an infection around the time of a dental procedure, and they want to know whether or not they could pursue a claim. Well, infections are a risk and complication of just about any type of procedure; particularly dental procedures. 

The infection cases I take on generally fall within two categories. 

First, the patient presents with an infection and the dentist either performs an improper treatment or does not prescribe antibiotics when they are indicated.

Second, is when a patient develops an infection after the procedure and the dentist ignores the signs and symptoms and fails to initiate timely treatment.  Of course, the infection spreads and gets worse.

In both cases, the damages must be sufficient enough to justify the expenses of litigation. Generally, this requires either prolonged hospitalization or a subsequent surgical procedure.

If you have sustained an injury following a dental procedure, please contact Scott for a no cost, no obligation consultation and case evaluation.

Nerve Injury After A Dental Procedure

I'm Scott Kuboff, a dental injury lawyer with the law firm of Ibold & O'Brien. I investigate and prosecute dental claims on behalf of clients who were seriously injured following a dental procedure.

Nerve injuries are, generally speaking, a risk and complication of almost every dental procedure; meaning it can happen even in the absence of negligence.  Keep in mind, it's our job to show the doctor did something wrong.

To bring a claim against a dentist, there has to be a good mix of liability and damages.  “Liability” is just another way of saying that the dentist did something wrong.  “Damages” are the amount of money you can recover for your injuries, harms, and losses that were sustained as a result of that error. 

Since these types of claims are very costly to pursue, I need to make sure that the recoverable damages considerably exceed the case expenses; otherwise, I’m not doing any good for my clients if I’m unable to put any money into their pocket for the fix or for what they've been through.

I often get phone calls and emails from people who have sustained some type of nerve injury following a dental procedure.  Nerve injuries are, generally speaking, a risk and complication of almost every dental procedure; meaning it can happen even in the absence of negligence.  Keep in mind, it's our job to show the doctor did something wrong.

In these types of cases, what I'm looking for is the nature of the nerve damage. For example, is it compressed, stretched, severed, or otherwise damaged by caustic solution.  This gives me some insight as it relates to whether this injury is what you would expect from the procedure or possibly caused by the dentist’s neglect.

Of course, I am always considering the damage component. If it is a nerve injury that is improving since the procedure and you are not undergoing any further care, it's likely that the costs of litigation would far exceed any recoverable damages. However, if the injury is permanent and causing a significant disability in your life, then the damages start to weigh in favor of conducting a more formal review.

If you have sustained an injury following a dental procedure, please contact Scott for a no cost, no obligation consultation and case evaluation.

Bone Fragments After An Extraction

I'm Scott Kuboff, a dental injury lawyer with the law firm of Ibold & O'Brien. I investigate and prosecute dental claims on behalf of clients who were seriously injured following a dental procedure.

It is a known risk and complication that bones at will splinter or fragments or shards will come through following the extraction.  After all, the tooth is embedded in bone.  

To bring a claim against a dentist, there has to be a good mix of liability and damages.  “Liability” is just another way of saying that the dentist did something wrong.  “Damages” are the amount of money you can recover for your injuries, harms, and losses that were sustained as a result of that error. 

Since these types of claims are very costly to pursue, I need to make sure that the recoverable damages considerably exceed the case expenses; otherwise, I’m not doing any good for my clients if I’m unable to put any money into their pocket for the fix or for what they've been through.

I often get emails and phone calls from people who have undergone an extraction and now are getting boney bits and pieces coming through their socket or gums.   It is a known risk and complication that bones at will splinter or fragments or shards will come through following the extraction.  After all, the tooth is embedded in bone.  

What I’m looking for is whether or not the maxilla or mandible – that is your upper and lower jaw – was fractured during the extraction and then the extent of it.  If it was necessary to be hospitalized or otherwise undergo a subsequent surgical procedure where hardware was implanted – plates and screws – in that case, the damages would weigh in favor of a formal review.  Otherwise, it's likely the cost of litigation would far exceed what we may be able to recover.

If you have sustained an injury following a dental procedure, please contact Scott for a no cost, no obligation consultation and case evaluation.

Got a Root Canal. Now it Needs Re-treated or Extracted.

I'm Scott Kuboff, a dental injury lawyer with the law firm of Ibold & O'Brien. I investigate and prosecute dental claims on behalf of clients who were seriously injured following a dental procedure.

It's not uncommon for a tooth on which a root canal was performed to need re-treatment or extraction shortly thereafter. Just because that happens, it does not necessarily mean the dentist did anything wrong.

To bring a claim against a dentist, there has to be a good mix of liability and damages. “Liability” is just another way of saying that the dentist did something wrong. “Damages” are the amount of money you can recover for your injuries, harms, and losses that were sustained as a result of that error.

Since these types of claims are very costly to pursue, I need to make sure that the recoverable damages considerably exceed the case expenses; otherwise, I’m not doing any good for my clients if I’m unable to put any money into their pocket for the fix or for what they've been through.

I get phone calls and emails from people who have had a root canal and now that tooth needs re-treated or otherwise extracted. It's not uncommon for a tooth on which a root canal was performed to need re-treatment or extraction shortly thereafter. Just because that happens, it does not necessarily mean the dentist did anything wrong.

To answer that question, I would need to get the records, radiographs, and send them off to an expert for formal review. To justify the time and expense in doing so, we really must consider damages. If it's a matter of a re-treatment or simple extraction, it's likely the costs of litigation would far exceed any recoverable damages. Of course, other lawyers have different opinions, and you should call around to discuss your particular claim.

Usually, in these situations, I counsel people to talk to the dentist to see if they could get a credit on their account for the second root canal or towards the extraction. However, if it required hospitalization for several days or otherwise a significant surgical procedure, in that case, the damage component begins to weigh in favor of conducting a formal review.

If you have sustained an injury following a dental procedure, please contact Scott for a no cost, no obligation consultation and case evaluation.

Got a Filling. Now You Need A Root Canal.

I'm Scott Kuboff, a dental injury lawyer with the law firm of Ibold & O'Brien. I investigate and prosecute dental claims on behalf of clients who were seriously injured following a dental procedure.

Often, I get asked whether you could pursue a claim against a dentist when you go in for a filling and then shortly thereafter end up needing a root canal on that same tooth. 

To bring a claim against a dentist, there has to be a good mix of liability and damages.  “Liability” is just another way of saying that the dentist did something wrong.  “Damages” are the amount of money you can recover for your injuries, harms, and losses that were sustained as a result of that error. 

Since these types of claims are very costly to pursue, I need to make sure that the recoverable damages considerably exceed the case expenses; otherwise I’m not doing any good for my clients if I’m unable to put any money into their pocket for the fix or for what they've been through.

Often, I get asked whether you could pursue a claim against a dentist when you go in for a filling and then shortly thereafter end up needing a root canal on that same tooth.  Remember, you have to have a good mix of liability and damages.  As to the liability component, it's not out of the question that a tooth with a deep filling is going to end up needing a root canal at some point down the road.  Now, the question of whether the root canal should have been performed in the first case, that's fair, but to get an answer to that question, I would have to obtain your records and send them to an expert for a formal review.

This brings me to the damage component, and whether the damages rise to the level to justify the time and expense. For a tooth that was recently filled and now needs a root canal, it's likely that the costs of litigation would far exceed any damages we may be able to recover. Therefore, it's not the type of claim that I would review.  Of course, this does not mean that other lawyers would not review the claim; you should call around to see if someone else could assist you.  However, in these circumstances I counsel folks to talk to the dentist to see if there's some type of credit that could be provided on their account to pay for the subsequent root canal and crown.

If you have sustained an injury following a dental procedure, please contact Scott for a no cost, no obligation consultation and case evaluation.

Extending the Statute of Limitations for Dental Malpractice

Ohio dental malpractice attorney, Scott Kuboff, discusses "180-day" letters and how they are used to extend the statute of limitations if properly served.

DISCLAIMER: This video is for educational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice as to the statute of limitations or how to properly serve a 180-day letter. If you want to know that information, contact an attorney.

If you have sustained an injury following a dental procedure, please contact Scott for a no cost, no obligation consultation and case evaluation.