[Skip to Content]
[Skip to Content Landing]
Article
January 12, 1935

Medicolegal

JAMA. 1935;104(2):143-144. doi:10.1001/jama.1935.02760020059035

This article is only available in the PDF format. Download the PDF to view the article, as well as its associated figures and tables.

Abstract

Malpractice: Fragments of Extracted Tooth Lodged in Lung.—  The plaintiff sued the defendant-dentist for malpractice, claiming that while extracting several of her teeth under a general anesthetic the dentist permitted fragments of one tooth to become lodged in her right lung, and that he failed to inform her of that fact. Judgment for $25,000 was given for the plaintiff, and the defendant-dentist appealed to the Supreme Court of Oregon.The trial court did not err, said the Supreme Court, in permitting an expert witness to testify that the treatment and care administered by the defendant, as outlined in a hypothetical question, was not in conformity with that degree of care, skill, diligence and knowledge ordinarily possessed and exercised by the average dentist in good standing in the same or similar localities. This testimony did not trespass on the province of the jury. The trial court erred, further contended the defendant,

First Page Preview View Large
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview
×