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 real-life case study, dentists will see how a billing dispute and incomplete informed consent process escalated into a malpractice lawsuit. Learn why clear communication about treatment risks, accurate coding practices, and thoughtful handling of patient concerns are essential to reducing liability and protecting patient trust.

Key concepts

Dentist sued after a billing dispute and nerve injury
How informed consent gaps can increase malpractice risk
Why accurate coding and patient communication matter

Background facts

For Dr. A, extracting teeth was an everyday part of practice, as was virtually the entire scope of dentistry. In addition to postdoctoral training, she had been performing these procedures for years in a region of the state with no oral surgeons within a 2–3-hour drive. She was a participating provider in several dental insurance plans that were popular among her patients.

One such patient, P, was an 18-year-old high school senior who presented for an annual recall visit, with a new complaint of periodic pain associated with the lower right third molar. Despite P being of majority, his mother accompanied him into the treatment room to see Dr. A. Following a clinical examination, a panoramic film was taken and viewed by Dr. A. Tooth #32 was erupted, had incomplete apex formation, but was still in close radiographic proximity to the inferior alveolar canal. Dr. A assessed the pain to be a function of difficulty in cleansing the area, with inflamed gingivae as a result. She suggested, while pointing to the panoramic, extraction, which she said, "shouldn't be too hard,” although it carried a "slight risk of a nerve injury which could leave P's lower lip and chin numb, and rarely be permanent." This conversation was documented with specificity in the chart. P had heard about impacted wisdom teeth from a few friends, so he asked whether his tooth was impacted. Dr. A replied, "No, it is not.” P wanted to think about it, so he left the office with a sample of an oral rinse and instructions as to how to improve his oral hygiene. A month later, the symptoms persisted, so P's mother called the office to schedule an extraction appointment.

Before having local anesthetic injected, P was handed a paper entitled "consent form,” which he and his mother "briefly read.” The document contained a list of potential risks, including a general statement about possible "loss of sensation.” P signed the document prior to the extraction going forward. Dr. A worked on the tooth for well over an hour, much longer than she had anticipated, cutting out pieces of tooth and trimming away bone using round and fissure burs. P could taste blood, particularly at one point, which caused Dr. A to pack gauze in his mouth. The following day, P awoke to find the right half of his lower lip and chin numb, which he did not find surprising, given the warning beforehand, but so was the right half of his tongue, which was a surprise. At post-op visits, Dr. A assured and re-assured P and his mother that feeling would return to normal — it never did.

Separately, P received a bill for Dr. A's services from her billing office, seeking a co-pay for "#32 7240.” The amount was significant, despite Dr. A's advertised plan participation, so P's mother questioned the office manager as to what all of this meant. The response was that, according to the insurance plan's rules, Dr. A was permitted to charge that amount for fully impacted wisdom teeth, as this was. P's mother replied that Dr. A had specifically advised her and her son that the tooth was not impacted, no less fully so. The office manager spoke with Dr. A, but the answer came back that, because Dr. A had to work so long to remove the tooth, she was not willing to make any adjustments.

P's mother contacted the insurance carrier to explain the situation. The carrier requested a pre-treatment radiograph from Dr. A, based upon which the in-house reviewers concluded that the tooth was not appropriately coded as 7240, but rather should have been 7210 (surgical extraction of erupted tooth). Under the plan provisions, Dr. A was therefore not permitted to charge any co-pay but instead accept the plan payment in full. When the insurer notified Dr. A of that, with a copy sent to P's mother (whose employer provided the coverage), Dr. A was steadfast that she was entitled to the amount billed and would send P to collection if she was not paid. P's mother did pay the claimed balance, but the carrier dropped Dr. A from the panel due to what it referenced as "upcoding resulting in excessive billing.”

Legal action

P had slowly been adapting to the lip, chin, and tongue numbness, but his mother remained upset about the principle of billing her son and threatening a collection action, so she contacted an attorney. The attorney was not very familiar with dentistry in any legal regard, so he reached out to his own dentist, with a copy of Dr. A's records that he had been provided, to help him interpret what was going on. The dentist agreed with the insurance company's position that the extraction had been inappropriately upcoded, but perhaps more importantly that it was clear from the records that, while P had been warned of the possibility of an inferior alveolar nerve injury and its effects, he had not been told anything about tongue numbness, which came from an injury to an entirely different nerve branch and which should have been avoided if proper technique had been employed.

The attorney initiated a lawsuit against Dr. A, asserting lack of informed consent relating to the lingual nerve injury, dental malpractice regarding the causing of the lingual nerve injury, and breach of contract leading to the improperly billed (and collected) co-pay amount. The defense attorneys assigned to Dr. A by her malpractice carrier reviewed the case with their client and advised her that they would seek expert opinion as to the substance of the informed consent and malpractice claims, but that she would not be covered for the breach of contract claim, per a clearly stated policy exclusion.

The expert retained by Dr. A's counsel was provisionally willing to present a defense as to the malpractice claim regarding her having negligently caused the tongue numbness, but that position would need to be re-evaluated following her deposition testimony. However, there was no evidence in the record to demonstrate that she had provided any warning of a potential lingual nerve injury and its impacts. The defense expert did not see a pathway to successfully defend the claim of lack of informed consent. A second expert reviewer reached the same conclusion.

Dr. A's attorneys had a candid discussion with her. Even if the malpractice claim could likely be effectively defended, the lack of informed consent claim could not. So, P would be entitled to a monetary award regardless of which, or both, of the claims went P's way in the eyes of a jury. Dr. A agreed to have her attorneys seek to settle the claim, to be paid by the malpractice carrier, which they did. As part of the settlement agreement, Dr. A would personally return to P the amount his mother paid her for the co-pay.

Takeaways

While it is impossible to know whether P would have sought an attorney at some point to file an action on his behalf based upon the substantive dental issues, it is quite clear that the issue which drove the initial attorney involvement was the billed, and eventually paid, co-pay amount. There is then perhaps a bit of irony that the money that Dr. A was unwilling to waive directly led to a settled malpractice claim, but that insisted-upon co-pay not only started the legal action steps but was also ultimately paid by Dr. A out-of-pocket. Dr. A made the decision to demand a disputed amount of money, and that decision likely cost her far more — particularly with her being dropped from a panel — than had she acquiesced in the first place. It is not our role here to advise dentists as to whether they should fervently go after unpaid, disputed fees. Instead, we demonstrate a situation where doing so ended up causing more harm than benefit. Food for thought.

Experience teaches that lay jurors might not always understand scientific, dental facts, sometimes making their determinations counter to what experts and attorneys anticipate. On the other hand, issues relating to overbilling or upcoding are relatively straightforward for plaintiffs' attorneys to explain to jurors, and simple for them to understand. At times, jurors might put all else aside and render a verdict for a plaintiff if they do not see the defendant-dentist as having been honest. Such is a version of jury nullification, with the jury members substituting what they deem critical in place of what the law says is critical. Taking subjectivity of that type out of the hands of juries increases a defendant's chances for success.

This case study exemplifies how the trigger for a patient seeking legal counsel might have nothing at all to do with the quality of dentistry. Yes, dentistry is complex, and there is an ever-present unpredictability factor, so ideal results do not happen with every procedure, with every patient. What need not be complex are matters over which dentists and their staff members have full control — such matters can virtually always be taken out of the equation as to what starts the legal ball rolling.

Finally, we briefly address the coding of procedures for billing purposes. The ADA and perhaps other associations provide numerical codes for dental procedures, which state the procedure performed and which often serve as the basis for which payment is sought and made. With few exceptions — such as 7241 for full impactions with unusual surgical complications, or time under sedation/general anesthesia, as examples — procedure codes do not take into account the length of time required to complete or the difficulty in doing so. To upcode to a procedure not actually performed, for a higher fee, is to invite a host of problems, including the initiation of a malpractice lawsuit or Dental Board complaint.

Summary of takeaways

A signed consent form alone is not enough — patients should be informed of all risks associated with a procedure, and those discussions should be thoroughly documented.
Billing disputes and inaccurate procedure coding can damage patient trust and may become the catalyst for malpractice claims.
Upcoding procedures can result in payer disputes, loss of network participation, regulatory concerns, and increased legal exposure.

In this real-life case study, oral and maxillofacial surgeons will learn how coding decisions and informed consent gaps can create significant liability risks. Discover why accurate billing, clear patient communication, and thorough consent discussions are essential risk management tools.

Key concepts

OMS sued following an upcoding dispute and nerve injury
How billing and coding decisions affect malpractice risk
The importance of documenting consent discussions beyond a signed form

Background facts

For Dr. C, an oral and maxillofacial surgeon, extracting teeth was an everyday part of practice. As the only oral surgeon within a 2–3-hour drive, she was a participating provider in a number of dental insurance programs which were more popular within her patient and referral bases.

One such patient, T, was an 18-year-old high school senior who self-presented based upon a network list, with a new complaint of periodic pain associated with the lower right third molar. Despite T being of majority, his mother accompanied him into the treatment room to see Dr. C. Following a clinical examination, a panoramic film was taken and viewed by Dr. C. Tooth #32 was erupted, had incomplete apex formation, but was still in close radiographic proximity to the inferior alveolar canal. Dr. C assessed the pain to be a function of difficulty in cleansing the area, with inflamed gingivae as a result. She suggested, while pointing to the panoramic, extraction, which she said, "shouldn't be too hard,” although it carried a "slight risk of a nerve injury which could leave T's lower lip and chin numb, and rarely be permanent." This conversation was documented with specificity in the chart. T had heard about impacted wisdom teeth from a few friends, so he asked whether his tooth was impacted. Dr. C replied, "No, it is not.” T wanted to think about it, so he left the office with a sample of an oral rinse and instructions as to how to improve his oral hygiene, particularly in that area of the mouth. A month later, the symptoms persisted, so T's mother called the office to schedule an extraction appointment.

Before having local anesthetic injected, T was handed a paper entitled "consent form,” which he and his mother "briefly read.” The document contained a list of potential risks, including a general statement about possible "loss of sensation.” T signed the document prior to the extraction going forward. Dr. C worked on the tooth for nearly an hour, much longer than she had anticipated, cutting out pieces of tooth and trimming away bone using round and fissure burs. T could taste blood, particularly at one point which caused Dr. C to pack gauze in his mouth. The following day, T awoke to find the right half of his lower lip and chin numb, which he did not find surprising, given the warning beforehand, but so was the right half of his tongue, which was a surprise. At post-op visits, Dr. C assured and re-assured T and his mother that feeling would return to normal — it never did.

Separately, T received a bill for Dr. C's services from her billing office, seeking a co-pay for "#32 7240.” The amount was significant, despite Dr. C's advertised plan participation, so T's mother questioned the office manager as to what all of this meant. The response was that, according to the insurance plan's rules, Dr. C was permitted to charge that amount for fully impacted wisdom teeth, as this was. T's mother replied that Dr. C had specifically advised her and her son that the tooth was not impacted, no less fully so. The office manager spoke with Dr. C, but the answer came back that, because Dr. C had to work so long to remove the tooth, she was not willing to make any adjustments.

T's mother contacted the insurance carrier to explain the situation. The carrier requested a pre-treatment radiograph from Dr. C, based upon which the in-house reviewers concluded that the tooth was not appropriately coded as 7240, but rather should have been 7210 (surgical extraction of erupted tooth). Under the plan provisions, Dr. C was therefore not permitted to charge any co-pay but instead accept the plan payment in full. When the insurer notified Dr. C of that, with a copy sent to T's mother (whose employer provided the coverage), Dr. C was steadfast that she was entitled to the amount billed and would send T to collection if she was not paid. T's mother did pay the claimed balance, but the carrier dropped Dr. C from the panel due to what it referenced as "upcoding resulting in excessive billing.”

Legal action

T had slowly been adapting to the lip, chin and tongue numbness, but his mother remained upset about the principle of billing her son and threatening a collection action, so she contacted an attorney. The attorney was not very familiar with oral surgery in any legal regard, so he reached out to his own dentist, with a copy of Dr. C's records that he had been provided, to help him interpret what was going on. This state did not require specialty-specific experts. The dentist agreed with the insurance company's position that the extraction had been inappropriately upcoded, but perhaps more importantly that it was clear from the records that, while T had been warned of the possibility of an inferior alveolar nerve injury and its effects, he had not been told anything about tongue numbness, which came from an injury to an entirely different nerve branch and which should have been avoided if proper technique had been employed. (As a side note, the general phrase in the consent form, "loss of sensation,” did not provide any expert reviewer with the specificity that is helpful in a defense.)

The attorney initiated a lawsuit against Dr. C, asserting lack of informed consent relating to the lingual nerve injury, dental malpractice regarding the causing of the lingual nerve injury, and breach of contract leading to the improperly billed (and collected) co-pay amount. The defense attorneys assigned to Dr. C by her malpractice carrier reviewed the case with their client and advised her that they would seek expert opinion as to the substance of the informed consent and malpractice claims, but that she would not be covered for the breach of contract claim, per a clearly stated policy exclusion.

The expert retained by Dr. C's counsel was provisionally willing to present a defense as to the malpractice claim regarding her having negligently caused the tongue numbness — but that position would need to be re-evaluated following her deposition testimony. However, there was no evidence in the record to demonstrate that she had provided any warning of a potential lingual nerve injury and its impacts. The defense expert did not see a pathway to successfully defend the claim of lack of informed consent. A second expert reviewer reached the same conclusion.

Dr. C's attorneys had a candid discussion with her. Even if the malpractice claim could likely be effectively defended, the lack of informed consent claim could not. So, T would be entitled to a monetary award regardless of which, or both, of the claims went T's way in the eyes of a jury. Dr. C agreed to have her attorneys seek to settle the claim, to be paid by the malpractice carrier, which they did. As part of the settlement agreement, Dr. C would personally return to T the amount his mother paid her for the co-pay.

Takeaways

While it is impossible to know whether T would have sought an attorney at some point to file an action on his behalf based upon the substantive oral surgery issues, it is quite clear that the issue which drove the initial attorney involvement was the billed, and eventually paid, co-pay amount. There is then perhaps a bit of irony that the money that Dr. C was unwilling to waive directly led to a settled malpractice claim, but that insisted-upon co-pay not only started the legal action steps but was also ultimately paid by Dr. C out-of-pocket. Dr. C made the decision to demand a disputed amount of money, and that decision likely cost her far more — particularly with her being dropped from a panel - than had she acquiesced in the first place. It is not our role here to advise oral surgeons as to whether they should fervently go after unpaid, disputed fees. Instead, we demonstrate a situation where doing so ended up causing more harm than benefit. Food for thought.

Experience teaches that lay jurors might not always understand scientific, dental/surgical facts, sometimes making their determinations counter to what experts and attorneys anticipate. On the other hand, issues relating to overbilling or upcoding are relatively straightforward for plaintiffs' attorneys to explain to jurors, and simple for them to understand. At times, jurors might put all else aside and render a verdict for a plaintiff if they do not see the defendant-dentist as having been honest. Such is a version of jury nullification, with the jury members substituting what they deem critical, in place of what the law says is critical. Taking subjectivity of that type out of the hands of juries increases a defendant's chances for success.

This case study exemplifies how the trigger for a patient seeking legal counsel might have nothing at all to do with the quality of surgery performed. Yes, oral surgery is complex, and there is an ever-present unpredictability factor, so ideal results do not happen with every procedure, with every patient. What need not be complex are matters over which surgeons and their staff members have full control; such matters can virtually always be taken out of the equation as to what starts the legal ball rolling.

Summary of takeaways

A billing dispute can quickly escalate into legal action, even when the original concern is not directly related to clinical care.
Accurate coding matters because upcoding or disputed fees can damage patient trust and increase liability risk.
Clear, specific informed consent documentation helps support a stronger defense if complications occur.

[post_title] => Coding and Consent Issues Result in OMS Malpractice Lawsuit [post_excerpt] => [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => open [ping_status] => open [post_password] => [post_name] => coding-and-consent-issues-result-in-oms-malpractice-lawsuit [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2026-08-06 11:31:31 [post_modified_gmt] => 2026-08-06 15:31:31 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://oms.medprodental.com/?p=8028 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw ) [2] => WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 8010 [post_author] => 180159417 [post_date] => 2026-06-30 13:27:32 [post_date_gmt] => 2026-06-30 17:27:32 [post_content] =>

In this real-life case study, oral and maxillofacial surgeons will learn why informed consent is a critical part of surgical risk management—not just a formality. Understand how consent gaps, documentation limitations, and differing standards of care can affect malpractice claims, especially for newer practitioners or those working outside their own offices.

Key concepts

Why informed consent is more than a formality
How consent gaps can lead to malpractice claims
The importance of documenting surgical risk discussions

Background facts

Dr. G was an oral and maxillofacial surgery resident, in the third of six years of training. She spent most of her current time on off-service rotations, so she was able to moonlight outside of the hospital, which was a practice permissible in her program. To properly protect herself, Dr. G obtained malpractice insurance, which allowed for part-time non-resident work; inasmuch as she was not yet an oral surgeon, her premium was set as would be done for a general dentist performing oral surgery.

On a typical day in the busy, urban dental office, Dr. G generally treated between 10 and 15 patients, performing the extraction of impacted and non-impacted teeth, with an occasional root resection, apicoectomy, or biopsy. R, a 22-year-old man, presented with an episodically symptomatic, deeply impacted lower left third molar; he was directed to see Dr. G for evaluation and potential treatment. On the panoramic film that Dr. G reviewed, tooth #17 was fully imbedded in bone, with a mesioangular inclination so as to create a clinically-evident periodontal defect on the distal aspect of the adjacent second molar. Dr. G suggested to R that the wisdom tooth be extracted, with a bone graft placed into the socket. Because of the radiographic relationships that were visible and noted, clear warning was given about the realistic potential for left inferior alveolar nerve injury, and those effects, but little else was provided in terms of risks, even according to Dr. G's chart entry. The office had no written consent forms.

Under local anesthesia, Dr. G sectioned the tooth, taking note as she proceeded of the angulation of the crown toward the lingual. Exercising appropriate care to surgically stay away from the lingual plate and gingiva, the tooth was removed in sections, seemingly uneventfully; but as the crown portion was elevated out, what appeared to be an intact lingual nerve became visible immediately above the height of bone. The site was carefully debrided and irrigated, with a small amount of bone graft material placed just behind tooth #18. Because of Dr. G's hospital schedule, she knew that she would not be able to return to the office for 2 weeks, so she placed a chromic gut suture and advised R to return if he had any problems. Dr. G wrote a detailed chart entry, chronicling every surgical step and including her findings regarding the lingual nerve.

R never returned, and nobody from the office, including Dr. G, attempted to contact him: because of the large patient volume, post-treatment calls were not very feasible, given the few administrative staff members.

Legal action

No word was heard from or about R until the office received a letter, some 10 months after treatment, from an attorney representing R. The letter requested complete copies of R's records; the office complied but did not inform Dr. G of the request or compliance. Approximately 3 months later, a process server appeared at the hospital's oral surgery clinic and handed Dr. G a copy of the papers initiating a lawsuit against her. The Complaint alleged professional negligence — dental malpractice — for improper surgery that resulted in left-sided tongue numbness and taste loss, as well as lack of informed consent. After gathering her thoughts, she contacted her malpractice insurance carrier, forwarded what she was given, asked the office to forward to her carrier a copy of R's office records, and was ultimately contacted by the attorneys hired to represent her.

In the first lawyer-client meeting, the litigation process was discussed with Dr. G. In turn, Dr. G described her surgical technique, as had been documented, which sounded "textbook" to her attorney, who was well-experienced in defending dental malpractice cases. The attorney expressed concern about there being no written consent form, compounded by the limited statement of risks in the chart entry, which ignored injury to the lingual nerve and, by extension, the chorda tympani. At the conclusion of the meeting, the attorney discussed his next immediate steps, which included obtaining a very preliminary expert review from a general dentist who performed many extractions. (The State in which the lawsuit was filed required that all experts be of the same area of practice as the defendant; because Dr. G was still in training, she was a general dentist.)

Pending depositions and other discovery, the potential expert supporting Dr. G was of the opinion that her description of the surgery lacked any defects, with the resulting injury being a function of the anatomic relationships at play, namely the tilt toward and proximity of the crown to the lingual nerve complex. As to the issue of lack of informed consent, the expert's opinion was that, in the world of general dentists, although not oral surgeons, written consent forms for surgical procedures were the exception rather than the rule, and risk discussions by general dentists, although not by oral surgeons, were usually quite limited, with Dr. G's documented risk statement falling well within that general-dentist-based parameter.

Discovery proceeded with no surprises and no changes in defense expert opinion. All involved prepared for trial, with disclosures of anticipated expert testimony shared. On the first day of trial, but before seating the jury, R's (plaintiff's) counsel made a motion in limine — a pretrial request to exclude certain testimony or other evidence — to bar Dr. G's expert from setting forth standards of care, regarding surgical technique, informed consent, or otherwise, that were different as between general dentists and oral surgeons. If successful, Dr. G's expert would not be able to argue that Dr. G, as a general dentist (in reality), should not be held to meet the informed consent standard of care of oral surgeons regarding written consent forms and the extent of surgical risks discussed with R.

The trial judge ruled that Dr. G's expert would not be able to draw the distinction planned between oral surgeons and other dentists. In short, the court said that it is the procedure, not the practitioner, that carries the standard of care. Allowing for such differences would prejudice patients such that those having surgery performed by dentists who are not oral surgeons would essentially be signing on to a lesser level of care, which would not be proper. Dr. G remained confident that she had performed the surgery appropriately in all respects, but she understood the implications of the court's decision as it related to her obtaining of informed consent from R, namely that her process did not meet the standard for the procedure. She agreed to try to reach a settlement, and that was accomplished before the first words were spoken at trial.

Takeaways

The ruling by the judge in this isolated case is one that is quite commonly, although not necessarily universally, adopted by courts. As stated here, the basis for that is the protection of patient safety, a frequent theme of many court decisions on any number of issues. The lesson, though, is clear: any practitioner who undertakes any procedure should understand that their actions in doing so will be held to the standards of experienced practitioners with focused training. Oral surgeons might well read this concept and reason that it does not affect them, given their superior training; but the application to oral surgeons is most relevant to newer practitioners who, despite their strong academic backgrounds, simply do not have very much in-practice experience. That comes with time and repetition, with a learning curve to get there.

As we have discussed in other case studies, the impact of lack of informed consent is often underestimated, but it ought not be that way. Here, Dr. G committed no malpractice surgically, at least as the description describes, but the informed consent process fell short, with that alone leading to a result for the plaintiff. The informed consent process is far more than just a throwaway to check off a box, but rather an integral part of surgery, with ramifications of deficiencies having the same ultimate litigation effect as negligently carried out surgery.

While this case study does not directly address the propriety of a panoramic radiograph as compared with a 3-D imaging study such as a CBCT, it is the proverbial elephant in the room. It would be hard to disagree with the concept that 3-D imaging is preferred so as to help in identifying anatomic relationships and potential hazards. But whether use of a CBCT constitutes standard of care will ultimately boil down to dueling opinions of experts for the plaintiff and the defendant, both subject to cross-examination. Standards of care are not published, but if they were, it would be unlikely to see such a publication make its way into trial evidence, for the reason based upon the age-old attorney mantra that a lawyer cannot cross-examine a piece of paper. As of this point in time, opposing experts strongly sit on both sides of the issue regarding the type of imaging appropriate for a given situation, and that is where the world of litigation will remain, at least for the near future. Oral surgeons would do well to determine for themselves what their judgment of choice is, and have a solid line of reasoning to support it.

Moonlighting residents and newer oral surgeons who travel between offices, often not their own, face a number of challenges to go along with the benefits. Weighing them has surgical-legal implications that might not become apparent until years after the fact.

Summary of takeaways

Practitioners are held to the standard of care for the procedure performed, regardless of their training level or practice designation.
Informed consent is a critical part of surgical care, and deficiencies in the process can carry significant malpractice risk.
Oral surgeons, residents, and traveling practitioners should carefully evaluate imaging decisions, documentation practices, and office processes before performing procedures.

[post_title] => Informed Consent Shortfall Leads to OMS Malpractice Claim [post_excerpt] => [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => open [ping_status] => open [post_password] => [post_name] => informed-consent-shortfall-leads-to-oms-malpractice-claim [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2026-08-31 10:31:22 [post_modified_gmt] => 2026-08-31 14:31:22 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://oms.medprodental.com/?p=8010 [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] => 8065 [post_author] => 180159417 [post_date] => 2026-08-17 01:58:52 [post_date_gmt] => 2026-08-17 05:58:52 [post_content] =>

Key concepts

Dentist sued after a billing dispute and nerve injury
How informed consent gaps can increase malpractice risk
Why accurate coding and patient communication matter

Background facts

Legal action

Takeaways

Summary of takeaways

A signed consent form alone is not enough — patients should be informed of all risks associated with a procedure, and those discussions should be thoroughly documented.
Billing disputes and inaccurate procedure coding can damage patient trust and may become the catalyst for malpractice claims.
Upcoding procedures can result in payer disputes, loss of network participation, regulatory concerns, and increased legal exposure.

[post_title] => Billing Dispute and Consent Issues Lead to Malpractice Lawsuit [post_excerpt] => [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => open [ping_status] => open [post_password] => [post_name] => billing-dispute-and-consent-issues-lead-to-malpractice-lawsuit [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2026-09-06 22:05:30 [post_modified_gmt] => 2026-09-07 02:05:30 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://oms.medprodental.com/?p=8065 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw ) [comment_count] => 0 [current_comment] => -1 [found_posts] => 62 [max_num_pages] => 21 [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

Billing Dispute and Consent Issues Lead to Malpractice Lawsuit

See how a billing dispute, upcoding concerns, and informed consent gaps led to a dental malpractice lawsuit and costly legal consequences.

Coding and Consent Issues Result in OMS Malpractice Lawsuit

Learn how upcoding disputes and informed consent gaps can lead to OMS malpractice claims, patient distrust, and legal action.

Informed Consent Shortfall Leads to OMS Malpractice Claim

Oral and maxillofacial surgeons can learn how informed consent gaps, documentation issues, and procedure-based standards of care may contribute to OMS malpractice claims.

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.