Caution! Do Not Automatically Reject Dental Malpractice Cases
From my playbook to yours, the tip of the day, please remember that case calls regarding dental malpractice should be handled as judiciously as medical malpractice inquiries.
March 27, 2022 at 01:20 PM
7 minute read
I believe that I stand among the very few who have consistently handled plaintiffs dental malpractice cases. Some of you reading this may already direct calls my way that you receive from disgruntled dental patients. But I suspect that the bulk of you have a well-established intake philosophy that instinctively turns away most of these callers. After all, plaintiffs lawyers who handle medical malpractice cases cling to the notion that the value of a dental malpractice case cannot possibly outweigh the case costs. Realistically, can any dental malpractice case yield a meaningful economic result for your firm or the prospective client? I implore each of you to keep reading and, in the future, be less inclined to hit the proverbial "No" button when calls from the prospective clients complain of care received by a dental provider.
The dental cases that I have litigated over the last two decades have consistently produced six and even seven figure results. My practice niche was born from working with my then-husband, a board-certified Periodontist trained at the University of Pennsylvania, who spent tireless hours teaching me about things like tooth preservation, esthetic smile zones, occlusal surfaces, and the importance of the oral cavity. I learned about dental radiographs and their critical role in the practice of dentistry. I developed a complex understanding of general dentistry and how it differs from specialized dental practices including prosthodontics, endodontics, periodontics, orthodontics, and oral and maxillofacial surgery. Through trial and error, I cultivated a dental malpractice business model that has one very simplified mantra: the best dental cases are the ones that have nothing to do with teeth.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllSuperior Court Rejects Pa. Hospital's Challenge to $7.3M Med Mal Judgment
3 minute readPa. Appeals Court: Trial Judge Dismissed Med Mal Claims Without Giving Plaintiffs Proper Time to Fight Back
4 minute readPa. Hospital Agrees to $16M Settlement Following High Schooler's Improper Discharge
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1'It's Not Going to Be Pretty': PayPal, Capital One Face Novel Class Actions Over 'Poaching' Commissions Owed Influencers
- 211th Circuit Rejects Trump's Emergency Request as DOJ Prepares to Release Special Counsel's Final Report
- 3Supreme Court Takes Up Challenge to ACA Task Force
- 4'Tragedy of Unspeakable Proportions:' Could Edison, DWP, Face Lawsuits Over LA Wildfires?
- 5Meta Pulls Plug on DEI Programs
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250