Marshall Dennehey’s experienced team of health care litigators has extensive experience defending general dentists, oral and maxillofacial surgeons, prosthodontists, periodontists, and endodontists in professional liability matters and licensing board actions. We represent providers at every stage of a claim, from pre-suit risk management and claim evaluation through litigation and appeal.
We have a strong understanding of the standards of care that govern both routine and complex treatment, including extractions, implant placement, and anesthesia administration. Our experience includes defending a broad range of high‑exposure claims involving alleged surgical complications, permanent nerve damage, infection, misdiagnosis of oral cancer, and jaw fractures. We also regularly counsel dentists and oral surgeons in matters before state dental boards.
Our defense strategy is anchored in the early and active involvement of dental and surgical experts to develop strong, science‑based defenses that help strengthen our position at every stage of the litigation process. We offer practical, provider‑focused guidance that reflects an appreciation of the clinical realities of dental and surgical practice and a commitment to achieving efficient, favorable outcomes for our clients.
Results
Defense Verdict Secured in a Dental Malpractice Action
We received a defense verdict in a dental malpractice action before the Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas. The plaintiff had a history of issues with his third molars (wisdom teeth) beginning in 2012. In 2013, he was referred to have one of them extracted by a prior dentist. In October 2015, the plaintiff presented to our client for a broken tooth. During the exam, our client advised him that he needed to have all four of his third molars removed. He even suggested it needed to be done at the next visit. However, the plaintiff did not schedule any further appointments. On January 10, 2017, the plaintiff presented with an infected third molar on the lower right. Our client suggested extracting both third molars on the right, as all of his third molars were broken down and sources of infection, but the plaintiff would only allow extraction of the lower tooth. The dentist extracted the tooth, gave a prescription of amoxicillin, and administered two loading doses to get the antibiotic to therapeutic levels more quickly. He also told the plaintiff to call if the swelling in his face did not improve or if it got worse. Over the next four days, his swelling got worse every day, but he did not call the dentist. Finally, on January 14, 2017, his swelling had progressed into his neck, and he called our client, who saw him and immediately sent him to the emergency department. He was admitted to the hospital for 40 days, was intubated, underwent 11 procedures, including multiple incision and drainage procedures, placement of a PEG tube, and a tracheostomy. The plaintiff’s experts agreed that a patient has responsibility for his own care, and failing to have his teeth extracted, or calling the doctor when the situation got worse, contributed to his injury. Although contributory negligence was on the verdict slip, the jury never got to the question as they found our client was not negligent.
Successfully Defended a Claim for Failure to Diagnose Infectious Endocarditis After a Periodontal Procedure
We successfully defended a claim for failure to diagnose infectious endocarditis after a periodontal procedure. The plaintiff, who was 56 at the time, was diagnosed with streptococcal endocarditis after undergoing periodontal surgery with our client. As a result, he required an aortic valve replacement and claimed he had to sell his business as he could no longer work. It was asserted at trial that our client, the periodontist who performed the surgery, and the co-defendant dentist failed to recognize signs and symptoms of potential infectious endocarditis in post-op interactions with the plaintiff. The claim also alleged that had the plaintiff been diagnosed sooner, he would not have required open heart surgery and could have successfully been treated with antibiotics only. We argued that the appropriate standard of care was followed and that the plaintiff’s damages were unrelated to the care and treatment provided by their client.
