Practice More Safely // Risk Tips // Patient Must Cancel Joint Surgery Due to New Dental Guidelines

Patient Must Cancel Joint Surgery Due to New Dental Guidelines

Marc Leffler, DDS, Esq.
November 26, 2025

Reading time: 7 minutes

Considering recent guidelines regarding joint replacement surgeries, it’s more crucial than ever that oral surgeons coordinate their care with other medical professionals. In this case study, an oral surgeon performs multiple tooth extractions, unaware of the new guidelines surrounding the timing of dental procedures in relation to total joint arthroplasty (TJA). To reduce the risk of joint infection, the orthopedic surgeon reschedules the patient’s knee surgery for several months later. The patient expresses frustration at the inconvenience and the oral surgeon’s lack of awareness regarding these guidelines. However, no legal action is ultimately taken.

Key Concepts

Staying informed on evolving dental guidelines
Separating guidelines from standards of care
Understanding protocols for patients with joint replacements
Documenting communication between healthcare providers

Background Facts

P knew, from years of being told by various dental professionals, that he needed a number of teeth extracted due to gross decay. He admittedly did not have regular and adequate home oral hygiene habits, often leaving him with plaque build-up throughout his mouth and several areas of calculus, particularly on his lower anterior teeth. With an elective knee replacement surgery coming up in 2 weeks, he thought that this would be a good time to have those teeth extracted, in large part because he had read some online information about knee surgery and the potential for mouth bacteria to spread to that surgical site and lead to knee prosthesis loss.

When Dr. N examined P, clinically and radiographically, she noted 8 teeth in need of extraction, in addition to a long-overdue prophylaxis. P made Dr. N aware of the upcoming knee surgery. She arranged for P to have a cleaning that same day, with the extractions to be completed in 3 days.

The extractions went forward uneventfully, leaving a week-and-a-half before the scheduled orthopedic surgery. P saw Dr. N post-operatively to check the extraction sites, 5 days before the knee was to be treated, and all appeared to be healing within normal limits, although a lone bone spicule was easily removed.

P met with his orthopedic surgeon, Dr. C, in the hospital’s pre-surgical waiting area, where P casually mentioned that he had multiple dental extractions about 10 days prior, and the removal of a “small sliver of bone 5 days ago.” Dr. C immediately canceled the knee replacement surgery and told P to contact his office to reschedule once there would be no further dental intervention in those sites. At P’s request to understand more, Dr. C explained that current guidelines, which had “just taken effect,” included that there be a waiting period between oral surgery procedures and certain elective joint surgeries. Frustrated at the situation – because he had taken time off from work, asked family members to rearrange their own schedules to assist him upon his return home, would now need to redo his pre-operative lab testing, and would have to again go through the stress in anticipation of surgery. P contacted Dr. N’s office, asking to come in immediately.

Dr. N was surprised to see P, expecting that he would have been hospitalized and under his orthopedic surgeon’s care. P angrily explained what had happened, with Dr. N listening intently. Dr. N said that she had been unaware of any protocols in place that would have led Dr. C to cancel surgery for a dental-based reason. Nevertheless, she apologized profusely, but P never returned to see her. P located another dental practitioner, who determined the extraction sites to be completely healed, roughly a month or so later. P underwent successful knee replacement surgery, albeit several months after initially planned, with no complications.

Legal Action

Still upset over the entire episode, P spoke with a cousin who is an attorney, as well as a local medical malpractice lawyer. Both gave him the same advice, namely that, although he had suffered from significant inconvenience due to Dr. N’s lack of knowledge, he had no damages which would reasonably be compensable. The second attorney also pointed out that, even if Dr. N had been aware of the new protocol, the teeth were quite likely in need of extraction before the joint surgery anyway, so the orthopedist would have postponed the procedure in any event. All of P’s frustrations would have, therefore, been essentially the same.

Understanding that suing Dr. N would only be able to happen if he represented himself, P sent her a letter requesting copies of his entire chart, and asking her to report the incident to her malpractice carrier, which she did. No further action was ever taken by P.

Takeaways

The “current guidelines” referenced by Dr. C came into effect in late 2024, by way of protocols jointly developed by the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons (AAOS), the American Dental Association, and several other organizations. By way of history, the use of antibiotics in association with dental procedures for patients with joint replacements was recommended until as recently as approximately 2012, when the guidance changed to consider discontinuing that practice. The current approach regarding the relationship between dentistry and joint replacements takes antibiotics out of the picture, and instead speaks to the timing of certain dental procedures, both before elective total joint arthroplasty (TJA) and after any TJA. The organizations involved carefully referred to them as guidelines, as compared with standards of care (SOC). But in a litigation setting, it is far from unforeseeable that an expert for a plaintiff might well incorporate the guidelines into their testified-to SOC, if the guidelines were not followed and a negative event ensued.

The new guidelines, briefly stated, are: (1) noninvasive and minimally invasive dental procedures can be performed until the day before elective TJA; (2) dental extractions and other oral surgery procedures should be completed at least 3 weeks before elective TJA (because they can be expected to take up to 3 weeks to heal); and (3) most dental procedures should be delayed – if possible – for 3 months after TJA. The goal, according to the co-chair of the guideline group, is to prevent infections that might emanate from dental procedures, due to bacterial entrance into the bloodstream, which can then attach to the new joint prosthesis, thereby infecting it.

Even though litigation never took place in this case study, it would not be unexpected to imagine that litigation might well have gone forward if the result to P were different. For example, if P had the TJA and then presented to Dr. N 1-2 months later, and if Dr. N had performed the extractions at that time (with both P and Dr. N unaware of the new guidelines), and if the joint prosthesis were then lost to infection due to bacteria commonly found in the mouth, an expert for P, as plaintiff, would be able to make a colorable argument that P suffered as a result of Dr. N not following a published guideline, namely the waiting for 3 months after the TJA to extract the teeth.

A fair reading of the guidelines leaves some room for interpretation, such as what constitutes “noninvasive and minimally invasive dental procedures,” and what dentistry fits under the umbrella of “most dental procedures.” If unclear, a risk-protective approach is to directly involve the orthopedic surgeon, explaining what dentistry is planned, so that the surgeon replacing the joint can have input into the plan of action. In such situations, documentation of those communications is critical, in the event that a lawsuit or Board action were to later arise. A written plan – a letter, email, or text message – from the orthopedist is ideal, but absent that, a detailed, contemporaneous entry by the dentist/oral surgeon into the patient’s chart will serve as a solid, if not perfect, memorialization.

With dentistry and medicine fronts expanding at a fast pace, and with technology fueling that expansion, sometimes seemingly overnight, the burdens upon dental professionals to stay up to date about all aspects of patient care can be daunting. But that is exactly what is required to practice within the standard of care. The fact that a dentist might not be aware of very recent, yet relevant, changes that directly affect their practice will not serve to excuse any lapses that occur as a result. An approach looked at today as up-to-date might be viewed as old-fashioned and outdated tomorrow. Here, although Dr. N was made aware of P’s upcoming knee replacement surgery, she was not aware of the potential impact of her planned dental treatment upon that surgery. That directly and negatively affected P, but fortunately, in not very significant ways.

A question to consider is whether the patient, P, bears any responsibility for the events in this case, particularly by allowing his teeth to fall into such disrepair, all at his own hand, and for waiting until the virtual eve of knee surgery before seeking to address his dental problems. States vary in their handling of this type of issue during the course of litigation. But even when a particular jurisdiction allows for claims by the defendant against the plaintiff that might greatly reduce or completely eliminate monetary compensation, it becomes a strategic question for defense counsel (and the dentist’s malpractice carrier) as to whether there is value in going down that road, with the specter of the potential for a jury to be angered by the attempt to “blame the victim.” Litigation is a process that includes facts, law, strategy, ethics, and assessments of human nature, complex and intellectually stimulating.

Note that this case presentation includes circumstances from several different closed cases, in order to demonstrate certain legal and risk management principles, and that identifying facts and personal characteristics were modified to protect identities. The content within is not the original work of MedPro Group but has been published with consent of the author. Nothing contained in this article should be construed as legal, medical, or dental advice. Because the facts applicable to your situation may vary, or the laws applicable in your jurisdiction may differ, please contact your personal or business attorney or other professional advisors if you have any questions related to your legal or medical obligations or rights, state or federal laws, contract interpretation, or other legal questions.

In this case study, oral and maxillofacial surgeons (OMS) will examine how a documentation error and failure to clinically verify a biopsy site led to wrong site oncologic surgery and malpractice claims. The case highlights the importance of obtaining clinical clarity before procedures.

Key Concepts

Preventing wrong-site surgery through pre-procedure precautions
Vicarious liability for documentation errors
Pure consent to settle clauses in malpractice policies

Background Facts

T, a 71-year-old man, was a retired carpenter, with a history of well-controlled hypertension and chronic, episodic sinusitis, and having smoked at various times in his life, as much as a pack of cigarettes a day. He visited his dentist, Dr. D, at irregular intervals and never wanted to establish a big-picture treatment plan. At his most recent visit, Dr. D noted a course, irregular white area at the buccal mucogingival junction around teeth #29-31. Not feeling comfortable making a provisional diagnosis, Dr. D referred T to a periodontist, Dr. O, to evaluate the area and treat as needed. Dr. O performed an incisional biopsy of the area and sent it to an oral pathologist, Dr. H, for histopathological assessment. The lesion was read out provisionally as atypical epithelial proliferation, but Dr. H asked for a larger sample to be able to make a more definitive diagnosis.

Dr. O took a second specimen from an immediately adjacent site. Due to a clerical error, Dr. O entered into the chart that this specimen had been taken from the "lower left buccal gingiva," with her dental assistant repeating that error on the pathology request form that was forwarded to Dr. H with the tissue. After microscopically examining the specimen, Dr. H diagnosed it definitively. The report from Dr. H to Dr. O read "squamous cell carcinoma, moderately-to-well differentiated, lower left buccal gingiva," the latter aspect having been copied by Dr. H, exactly from the requisition provided by Dr. O's office with the most recent submission.

Upon seeing the words "squamous cell carcinoma," Dr. O immediately referred T to a double-degree oral and maxillofacial surgeon, Dr. M, who had head-and-neck surgery fellowship training, for evaluation and treatment, giving T a copy of the biopsy report to take with him. Dr. M reviewed Dr. H's report, examined T, noting a small lesion on the buccal aspect of teeth #30-31, and explained to T that he would need a PET scan to determine whether there had been any spread. Presuming no such spread, Dr. M advised T that the lesion could be successfully treated by surgery alone, specifically a marginal mandibulectomy and a limited neck dissection. The lesion had not spread, per the PET scan and other modalities, so the stated plan would go forward. T agreed and surgery was scheduled at a regional medical center.

On the day of surgery, T waited in a pre-surgery room, where his medical history was reviewed and identification was checked. A consent form stating the procedure to be "removal of portion of lower jaw, and neck dissection" was signed by T and witnessed by a nurse. Dr. M said a brief "hello" to T before changing into scrubs and entering the operating room, where T was already on the table. Dr. M asked the anesthesiologist to proceed.

Dr. M had taped Dr. H's biopsy report to the OR wall, read it again, and prepared to make an extraoral left submandibular incision, through which he would both remove a mandibular segment and perform the limited neck dissection. Technically, the procedure went forward uneventfully, with T then transferred to the post-anesthesia care unit. T's wife was brought in to see her husband while Dr. M was still there, dictating his operative note. She was aghast to see that surgery had been performed on T's left side, when she knew that the cancer was on the right. When she confronted Dr. M on the spot, he said, "here's the biopsy report, read it for yourself."

Shortly after T's initial surgical recovery, another surgeon treated T, this time correctly operating on the right side of T's face and neck. T suffered emotionally, to the extent that he sought and obtained psychological counseling, but he was never able to comfortably eat or drink, or otherwise normally function orally again. He required and received reconstruction bilaterally, but he always found it to be very compromised and esthetically unacceptable.

Legal Action

T retained a seasoned attorney, who collected all records and obtained opinions from a general dentist (like Dr. D), a periodontist (like Dr. O), an oral pathologist (like Dr. H), and an OMS (like Dr. M). The general dentist saw no liability on Dr. D's part, as he had immediately made an appropriate referral. The oral pathologist similarly found no liability as to Dr. H, reasoning that oral pathologists in biopsy situations do not assess the patient clinically. They simply diagnose what they see microscopically, which he did accurately, and report the findings regarding the site that was conveyed on the requisition it had come from.

The conclusions as to Drs. O and M were quite the different. The expert periodontist stated his view of Dr. O's negligence succinctly: Dr. O's recording error which incorrectly stated the location of the lesion to be examined was inexcusable, and it served to set the entire cascade of events into action, resulting in wrong-side surgery having been done. The oral surgery expert was deeply critical of Dr. M, claiming that he failed to clinically correlate the location findings on a biopsy report with the patient's actual condition, and then compounded the situation by being unwilling to address his error, thereby violating his duties, both surgically and ethically. In short, said this expert, Dr. M failed to do the most basic tasks, namely double checking the intended surgical site before performing irreversible, life-altering treatments.

Substantial settlement amounts were paid to T on behalf of both Dr. O and Dr. M. Additionally, Dr. M was sanctioned by his State Board.

Takeaways

Wrong-site treatment, including surgery – whether, as here, relating to the side of the mandible to be removed, or extracting a first bicuspid instead of an orthodontically planned-for second bicuspid, or endodontically treating a healthy lower molar instead of the diseased tooth next to it – has permanent effects, which are virtually always preventable. Pre-procedure techniques can be, and routinely are, employed that will stop this type of error from ever taking place, such as taking a time out for confirmation, marking the side/site of surgery, having two people independently confirm what is to be done, clinically correlating a result document (such as a biopsy report) with an actual finding, and having an open, no-consequences policy that encourages office staff to voice any concerns before a potential untoward event begins. The old "a stitch in time" adage is never more applicable than in pre-procedure risk protection.

One of the most frequent case types now seen in malpractice claims is a practitioner performing treatment where it was not intended to be, and the trend appears to be growing. While the reasons for that are simply theories, a common-sense approach is that such events might well be driven by a focus on the number of patients seen and procedures performed. In reality, the amount of time needed before a procedure to assure correct patient, correct site, correct procedure is nominal in comparison to the amount of time that most procedures take. But even if a practitioner or an office is measurably slowed down to achieve those assurances, obligations to patient safety warrant those delays.

This case highlights the consideration of responding to patients and their family members when results are not as planned or expected, when complications come to pass, or, as here, when errors are immediately obvious. It would not likely have changed the ultimate course of legal events had Dr. M responded to T's wife differently, because the negligence was so clear and significant, but it might have reduced the likelihood of a Board complaint being levied against him. Evidence to support that theory lies with the fact that no Board complaint was filed against Dr. O.

The pathology request form sent to Dr. H with the second specimen taken by Dr. O was completed by Dr. O's dental assistant, who wrote the requisition form. By way of a concept known as vicarious liability, what the dental assistant wrote is the functional equivalent of Dr. O having written it herself. The assistant's error, whether copied from Dr. O's own transcription error or not, becomes Dr. O's error as well. All that is delegated comes back to the delegator, so double-checking of even such a seemingly unimportant task is critical for liability protection and for patient protection.

As a background fact, both Dr. O and Dr. M had professional liability ("dental malpractice") policies with "pure consent-to-settle" provisions, meaning that no settlement could have been reached without their agreement to do so. Such a provision means that a practitioner can demand that a lawsuit brought against them be tried in court before a jury, regardless of how strong the evidence of wrongdoing might be. For every case, practitioners are counseled by their attorneys regarding the pros and cons of settlement versus trial, with the potential implications of both fully set out on the table.

Finally, we note that, simply for purposes of brevity, some details, which were not relevant to the risk management issues discussed, were omitted. This is particularly the case regarding the pre-surgical work-up phase of care, secondary criticisms addressed by the experts, and the documentary and testimonial evidence before the State Board. Their absence should not be construed as necessary but missing pieces.

Summary of Takeaways

Wrong site surgery remains a leading and largely preventable source of malpractice claims.
OMS are accountable for errors made by delegated staff, even when those errors were unintentional.
Simple confirmation practices before irreversible procedures can prevent patient harm and legal consequences.

This real life case study reveals how limited 2D imaging can lead to missed anatomic details and patient complications. See how incorporating 3D imaging may help strengthen diagnostic accuracy and reduce malpractice risk in your oral and maxillofacial surgery practice.

Key Concepts

How imaging choices influence malpractice risk
Why expert opinions on imaging often differ
Key differences between 2D and 3D imaging

Background facts

Dr. P practiced restorative dentistry in a suburban community since her completion of dental school and a general practice residency. During her formal training and after, she engaged in didactic and clinical coursework involving implant placement and restoration, and regularly recommended and employed dental implants in her treatment plans. That was the case when a new area resident, O, a healthy man in his 40s, presented for general care and consideration for replacing missing tooth #30, which was extracted years ago following a trauma-induced fracture.

O's mouth was in generally good repair, as he practiced good home hygiene and had been a regular dental patient for his entire adult life. Dr. P discussed the replacement options of a 3-unit fixed bridge and an endosseous implant, upon which a single crown would be placed. After taking and viewing a panoramic radiograph, Dr. P advised O that he had "plenty of bone" to support an implant, and she suggested that approach. The costs were similar, so O opted for the implant plan. Dr. P advised O of the usual risks of implant surgery, including a nerve injury which could even be permanent in "rare" situations. O agreed to go forward and set up an appointment within the next few weeks.

At the surgical visit, a chairside assistant presented O with a document entitled Implant Consent Form, telling O that this was exactly what Dr. P had discussed with him. O quickly perused the form and signed it. Based upon measurements she made on the panoramic film, Dr. P determined there to be 14.5 mm of mandibular bone superior to the inferior alveolar canal (IAC), so she planned for and placed a 13 mm fixture. Upon elevating a gingival flap, Dr. P noticed that the lingual height of bone was "a good deal" higher than on the buccal aspect. Other than O briefly wincing toward the end of the preparation phase, all went smoothly, with the implant covered with soft tissue and sutured. A post-placement periapical radiograph showed the implant in very close approximation to the IAC, but Dr. P saw "daylight," so she was not concerned.

One week later, at the suture removal visit, O complained of "pins and needles" and "numbness" on the right side of his lower lip and chin; Dr. P stated that she remained "unconcerned", explaining that this is common and all should be back to normal over the next weeks or months. O returned for crown placement 5 months after implant surgery, still with the same "annoying sensations". Dr. P was surprised that the situation had not normalized, but she continued to reassure O of a return to normal. That never came.

Legal action

O always found the tingling and numbness to be uncomfortable, but he never thought to do anything about it until he met up with a college classmate of his, now an attorney, at an alumni event. The classmate did not practice law where O now lived, but suggested that he consult with an attorney he knew who did "a lot of malpractice work". O met with that lawyer, who gathered all of Dr. P's records and sent O to a local neurologist to assess the extent of the injury: the neurologist confirmed that O's mandibular nerve was, in fact, injured and did not conceive of any improvement, now nearly two years after the surgical event.

O's attorney contacted an experienced dentist whom he knew, who had testified in dental malpractice cases in the past, and who, like Dr. P, regularly placed and restored implants, seeking to retain that dentist as an expert on behalf of O. Following a review of the records, the expert reported back to the attorney that, in his opinion, Dr. P had deviated from the standard of care, which in the expert's view required the use of CBCT radiography in order to accurately determine available bone for implant placement. The expert cited specifically to Dr. P's intraoperative finding of a sloped mandibular crest, which could not have been determined on the 2-D panoramic but would have been seen on a 3-D CBCT, had one been taken. The expert added to that opinion the concept that, once Dr. P noted that lingual-to-buccal slope, she should have immediately stepped back and reconsidered whether the planned-for 13 mm implant was appropriate, which it ended up not being, as the measurement was based upon the highest point of the crest, rather than lower points on that slope, which were closer to the IAC.

The attorney quickly filed suit against Dr. P, as the statute of limitations was approaching. Dr. P contacted her professional liability carrier, which assigned defense counsel to Dr. P. O's attorney voluntarily shared his expert's report with defense counsel, hoping to demonstrate a strong basis for an early settlement. But, defense counsel retained its own expert, who opined that the standard of care allowed for 2-D panoramic films for the purpose of implant planning, although acknowledging a deep split within the dental profession, with some dentists and organized dental groups asserting that (exactly because of anatomic situations as Dr. P found) 3-D studies were required prior to posterior mandibular implant placement, with other dentists and dental groups agreeing with this defense expert's stance. In part, the latter view is supported by the statistical fact that, according to recent assessments, only 29% of U.S. general/restorative dentists have on-site CBCT availability, with less than 2/3 of dental specialists having such access.

Defense counsel recognized that a motion for summary judgment – one seeking dismissal of the case without trial – would not be fruitful because such a motion can only be successful when, among other things, there is no legitimate difference between opposing expert opinions. Therefore, defense counsel thoroughly presented Dr. P with her options: go to trial and ask a jury to determine whether she had run afoul of the standard of care, allowing them to award money to compensate O for his injuries if they determined that she did not meet the standard of care, and if that was causative of his injuries; or trying to reach a pre-trial settlement, presuming that the carrier agreed with that prospect, which it did.

Dr. P frankly said to her attorney that, in multiple continuing education classes she had taken, the need for pre-implant CBCT studies was discussed, for the very reasons highlighted in O's treatment; she further acknowledged that she would have to testify to that experience if asked at trial. Dr. P was concerned, so she authorized attempts to resolve the case. Because O's injuries were viewed, even by his own lawyer, as not severe, evidenced in part by O having never sought subsequent evaluations or care other than at the direction of his attorney, a modest settlement was reached.

Takeaways

It is the rule, and not the exception, that experts for plaintiffs and defendants will disagree, and that is also the case for dentists as a whole, outside of the litigation realm. Those disagreements take center stage during dental malpractice trials, with jurors left to determine which of the opposing positions they accept. As Dr. P reasoned here, it is rarely, if ever, simply a coin flip, because a host of factors play into jury determinations, so the pre-trial "prediction calculus" takes into account a common-sense approach as to how lay people will most likely come to their conclusions on matters of science and professional expertise. Sometimes demeanors of the parties and/or experts carry the day; sometimes the bases of expert opinions are determinative; and sometimes, as might play here, particular professional experiences in the dentist's past are of significance. While legitimate (not fabricated) differences of expert conclusions generally preclude dismissal before trial by way of motions, those differences will need to be resolved by a trial jury. There is no getting around that.

This case study briefly touches on the concept of statute of limitations (SOL), so a short description is in order. The SOL is the time following a claimed negligent event (or sometimes the subsequent discovery of that event) within which a plaintiff must file suit, or be forever time-barred. Of course, as with so many issues in the law, there are nuances and issues that can serve to lengthen the allowable timeframe, but they are exceptions, with the statutory SOL generally being the bedrock. The concept of SOL is perhaps the most variable legal issue as between the States – or at least close to the top of the list – but it is a consideration for attorneys (or self-represented plaintiffs) to grapple with, and not something with which dentists need to familiarize themselves.

As the body of this case study references, divergent views exist within dentistry as to what radiographic techniques are "best" for various planned procedures or diagnostic approaches, which in the litigation arena often translates to opinions as to the standard of care. Articles in respected journals present competing ideas. Some take the approach that dentists are in the most ideal position to make patient-based, procedure-based, and circumstance-based decisions as to which radiographic techniques – whether CBCT, panoramic, periapical, etc. – are most appropriate clinically; others are more rigid, asserting, for example, that nearly all invasive dental/oral surgical procedures require CBCT studies in advance. While we do not advocate here in either direction, dentists and oral surgeons ought to be aware of these opposing schools of thought and consider them in decision-making, realizing that jurors might get the final say.

We end on a note about the decision faced by Dr. P. Given that she had a "consent-to-settle" policy, it was her right to refuse any type of settlement, regardless of the input or advice of her counsel or insurer. Had she not had such a policy, that decision would not have been hers to make. This is yet another issue for dentists to consider when choosing a malpractice carrier and policy.

[post_title] => 2D vs. 3D Imaging: What OMS Should Know About Implant Planning [post_excerpt] => [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => open [ping_status] => open [post_password] => [post_name] => 2d-vs-3d-imaging-what-oms-should-know-about-implant-planning [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2026-04-03 13:18:07 [post_modified_gmt] => 2026-04-03 17:18:07 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://oms.medprodental.com/?p=7857 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw ) [2] => WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 7789 [post_author] => 180159417 [post_date] => 2025-12-12 12:28:28 [post_date_gmt] => 2025-12-12 17:28:28 [post_content] =>

In this real-life case study, oral and maxillofacial surgeons will see how a missed biopsy report led to a devastating outcome and costly litigation. The article explores the clinical and administrative failures that allowed a cancer diagnosis to go unnoticed and offers practical risk management strategies to prevent similar tragedies.

Key Concepts

Patient communication in OMS offices
Ensuring timely review of lab reports
How proactive follow-up prevents patient harm

Underlying facts

B, a 54-year-old longtime smoker, had many teeth removed in her adult life due to inadequate oral hygiene. Whenever she went to the dental office (T), it was almost always because of acute symptoms, so she generally ended up in the hands of the oral surgeon currently working at this large group practice in her town. Dr. I was fairly new to oral surgery practice, so he came to the dental office (T) about once every second or third week, as T's needs dictated, while building his own practice in the neighboring county.

When B presented to T, after having not seen any dentist for some 18 months, she complained to the front desk staff of a persistent "sore" in the floor of the mouth, adjacent to where the second and third molars would have been. B was immediately assigned to see Dr. I, who was there that day. Upon examination, Dr. I noted a 1-1.5 cm centrally eroded area of erythroplakia, which bled on light touching. Dr. I told B that he wanted to take a tissue sample to be biopsied, but, not wanting to make her unnecessarily anxious, he said that this was simply a precautionary measure, albeit not overly concerning, despite his own concerns. With local anesthesia, Dr. I removed a small section of the lesion (which did not require any suturing) and sent it to a local lab for pathologic evaluation.

Before leaving the office, B said to Dr. I, "I assume that you'll call me if it's anything bad," to which Dr. I responded, "Of course." Eight days later, a mailed biopsy report was opened at T's front desk by the staff person who regularly handled mail. That staff member placed the report in the physical paper file for B, without reading it or showing it to any dentist, so the diagnosis of "consistent with squamous cell carcinoma" became known to nobody in the office. Not hearing any news, B presumed that all was fine. By the time Dr. I next worked at T, nearly 3 weeks after his prior visit, he had forgotten about the procedure he had performed on B, and nobody knew to alert him to the contents of the report.

Almost a year after seeing Dr. I, B had a hysterectomy. During her pre-operative evaluation, the anesthesiologist noticed a large sublingual lesion while assessing intubation and airway considerations. The anesthesiologist then started the post-surgical process of having B evaluated by the hospital's otolaryngology department, which led to a complete work-up that revealed that the oral squamous cell carcinoma had metastasized broadly. Despite a hemi-mandibulectomy, neck dissection, and a course of chemotherapy, B passed away approximately 2 years after her visit with Dr. I. She left behind an 18-year-old daughter, E.

Legal action

Distraught over the loss of her mother and in dire financial straits, she contacted an attorney to look into her options. E advised the attorney that her mother was complaining about a sore in her mouth for years, and had it checked out by an oral surgeon, "but it was nothing." The attorney made an application to the court to have E appointed as the representative of B's estate, which was granted, after which the records from T and the pathology lab, among others, were requested and received. E's lawyer immediately saw the biopsy report that had been sent to Dr. I at the office of T but found no evidence of any follow-up. E confirmed that she believed that nobody from the dental office ever told her mother about the biopsy findings.

The attorney enlisted the services of an oral and maxillofacial surgeon, a pathologist, and an oncologist to review the records and offer their opinions about potential liability and causation. The oral surgeon determined that Dr. I acted appropriately in immediately taking a specimen of the lesion and sending it for histologic evaluation, but that he failed to follow up on it, thereby leading to the failure of notifying B so that she could timely receive care and treatment; the office, T, was also criticized for not having a system in place whereby every medical and dental document that came in the mail must be reviewed by a dentist. The pathologist was minimally critical of the treating pathologist for not making a phone call to Dr. I or to T upon his abnormal finding, but in the end, the pathologist was of the view that the standard of care required communication to the treating oral surgeon of an abnormal finding, but that standard did not require any specific method of communication. Finally, the reviewing oncologist concluded that, had B been timely sent on a path for a thorough work-up and treatment following the initial biopsy, she would have been able to be treated by less invasive means and would quite likely have survived.

The attorney filed suit against Dr. I and T, asserting claims of B's wrongful death and of pain and suffering for needing the aggressive treatment she had and for going through a slow, painful course toward her death. Dr. I and T alerted their respective malpractice carriers upon being served with the lawsuit papers, and they were assigned different defense counsel. Discovery went forward, with depositions of E, Dr. I, and T's mail clerk taking place, as well as the exchange of relevant documents and statements of expert opinions.

Those expert opinions on behalf of both defendants, Dr. I and T, were not at all supportive, essentially echoing the opinions of the experts retained by the plaintiff's counsel. Realizing early on in the litigation that a defense would be quite challenging, if even realistically possible, the defendants and their malpractice carriers agreed to work toward settling the case with E, through her attorney, which was accomplished by means of a substantial payment, the majority of which was on behalf of Dr. I, the oral and maxillofacial surgeon.

Takeaways

Starting with something of a procedural point, we note that Dr. I and T were represented by different defense counsel. While here, there were different malpractice carriers for both defendants, so the assignment of different counsel seems logical, intuitive, and expected; that is not necessarily always the case. Even if the defendants were insured by the same company, they might also have been assigned different defense attorneys. In some circumstances, different defendants are represented by the same attorney, whether insured by the same or different carriers. The decision is often based upon the important consideration as to whether the various defendants appear to have all of their defense interests aligned, so that they can present a united defense front; otherwise, a potential conflict might well exist between the parties and their attorneys. However, there are times when multiple defendants begin a case with the same attorneys, but that needs to be separated out later in the litigation, if facts or circumstances arise that would lead to a likely conflicting approach to all defenses.

Moving to the clinical issues as they relate to Dr. I, particularly in situations of an itinerant oral surgeon who spends time working in the offices of others, where practice protocols might not be as patient-protective as would be best desired, or as they would be in their own practices. Regardless of the setting in which, as here, a biopsy is performed to assess a concerning situation, the burden of following up on results lies squarely with the surgeon who performed the procedure. Absent that, the patient can easily be inappropriately led into a state of blissful ignorance, as B was in this case study, presuming that nothing was amiss because she did not hear from the office or Dr. I; as a direct result, B carried on as though her health was good, until the ever-growing lesion was serendipitously discovered, by which time cure prospects were no longer viable. Yes, defense counsel could have argued that the time delay until discovery and treatment did not make a difference in the ultimate outcome, of course, based upon an oncology opinion saying so, but such approaches are traditionally difficult to maintain before a jury, whose members might well see it as "making excuses" and "blaming the victim."

The procedures of office T, which directly had a negative impact upon Dr. I as an itinerant, and upon B, allowed non-professional staff to bypass the professionals regarding a document as important as a biopsy report. It is the choice of every office and every practitioner to determine for themselves what are the most efficient and safe ways to ensure that the provision of critical information is not left to processes such as "don't worry if you don't hear from us,” or "call us if you don't feel better." Risk management principles are best carried out by professionals who affirmatively initiate follow-up in all clinical circumstances where awareness of continued symptoms, of worsening symptoms, or of static conditions is critical to the patient's well-being: biopsies, infections, and pain. While office staff can appropriately have a hand in setting up administrative systems that make certain that proper follow-up care takes place, the responsibility for its being carried out rests with the professional.

There is no doubt that practicing as an itinerant, particularly while new surgeons' own practices are growing, has a host of benefits. But what comes with that is at least a modicum of loss of administrative control, which can easily flow into loss of clinical control. The burden of liability does not change, regardless of setting or business ownership.

[post_title] => Missed Biopsy Report Leads to Tragic Outcome and Legal Fallout [post_excerpt] => [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => open [ping_status] => open [post_password] => [post_name] => missed-biopsy-report-leads-to-tragic-outcome-and-legal-fallout [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2026-02-27 10:47:23 [post_modified_gmt] => 2026-02-27 15:47:23 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://oms.medprodental.com/?p=7789 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw ) ) [post_count] => 3 [current_post] => -1 [before_loop] => 1 [in_the_loop] => [post] => WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 7898 [post_author] => 180159417 [post_date] => 2026-03-04 06:30:26 [post_date_gmt] => 2026-03-04 11:30:26 [post_content] =>

Key Concepts

Preventing wrong-site surgery through pre-procedure precautions
Vicarious liability for documentation errors
Pure consent to settle clauses in malpractice policies

Background Facts

Legal Action

Substantial settlement amounts were paid to T on behalf of both Dr. O and Dr. M. Additionally, Dr. M was sanctioned by his State Board.

Takeaways

Summary of Takeaways

Wrong site surgery remains a leading and largely preventable source of malpractice claims.
OMS are accountable for errors made by delegated staff, even when those errors were unintentional.
Simple confirmation practices before irreversible procedures can prevent patient harm and legal consequences.

[post_title] => Failure to Verify Leads to Irreversible Surgical Error [post_excerpt] => [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => open [ping_status] => open [post_password] => [post_name] => missed-verification-leads-to-irreversible-surgical-error [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2026-03-30 09:31:21 [post_modified_gmt] => 2026-03-30 13:31:21 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://oms.medprodental.com/?p=7898 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw ) [comment_count] => 0 [current_comment] => -1 [found_posts] => 56 [max_num_pages] => 19 [max_num_comment_pages] => 0 [is_single] => [is_preview] => [is_page] => [is_archive] => 1 [is_date] => [is_year] => [is_month] => [is_day] => [is_time] => [is_author] => [is_category] => 1 [is_tag] => [is_tax] => [is_search] => [is_feed] => [is_comment_feed] => [is_trackback] => [is_home] => [is_privacy_policy] => [is_404] => [is_embed] => [is_paged] => [is_admin] => [is_attachment] => [is_singular] => [is_robots] => [is_favicon] => [is_posts_page] => [is_post_type_archive] => [query_vars_hash:WP_Query:private] => cdeba4055fedac706a5c1af0bd478a05 [query_vars_changed:WP_Query:private] => [thumbnails_cached] => [allow_query_attachment_by_filename:protected] => [stopwords:WP_Query:private] => [compat_fields:WP_Query:private] => Array ( [0] => query_vars_hash [1] => query_vars_changed ) [compat_methods:WP_Query:private] => Array ( [0] => init_query_flags [1] => parse_tax_query ) [query_cache_key:WP_Query:private] => wp_query:29c2b4b1013314102019ef1a7d5c5c62 )

Additional Risk Tips content

Failure to Verify Leads to Irreversible Surgical Error

In this case study, wrong site oral surgery leads to malpractice claims. Read the article to learn how pre-procedure safeguards can prevent devastating errors.

2D vs. 3D Imaging: What OMS Should Know About Implant Planning

A case study showing how 2D imaging in implant planning can miss critical anatomy and increase malpractice risk, highlighting the value of 3D imaging.

Missed Biopsy Report Leads to Tragic Outcome and Legal Fallout

A real-life case study showing how a missed biopsy report in an oral surgery setting led to a fatal cancer outcome and costly litigation. Learn key risk management strategies to prevent communication failures and protect patients.

This document does not constitute legal or medical advice and should not be construed as rules or establishing a standard of care. Because the facts applicable to your situation may vary, or the laws applicable in your jurisdiction may differ, please contact your attorney or other professional advisors if you have any questions related to your legal or medical obligations or rights, state or federal laws, contract interpretation, or other legal questions.

MedPro Group is the marketing name used to refer to the insurance operations of The Medical Protective Company, Princeton Insurance Company, PLICO, Inc. and MedPro RRG Risk Retention Group. All insurance products are underwritten and administered by these and other Berkshire Hathaway affiliates, including National Fire & Marine Insurance Company. Product availability is based upon business and/or regulatory approval and/or may differ among companies.