Our Client, A.G., was alleged to have violated their duty of fair dealing with respect to a geriatric patient with dementia (“Patient”). A.G. was sent to the nursing home where the Patient lived and conducted a full mouth assessment and x-rays, free of charge. A.G. observed severe periodontal disease, two irreparably broken teeth, and a pronounced cross bite which was causing wear on many teeth, among other issues.
A.G. developed a treatment plan and proposed procedures to resolve all the issues A.G. observed, as was their legal duty. The treatment plan was intended, per company policy, to be presented to the Patient’s responsible party, so the Patient’s responsible party could make informed decisions about which procedures to authorize and which to reject. The Patient’s responsible party did not bother to have that conversation and sought a second opinion from the Patient’s long-time family dentist. The family dentist was asked by the Board to submit a statement of his opinion of A.G.’s treatment plan.
The family dentist claimed, in a sworn statement to the Board, that none of the procedures proposed by A.G. were warranted. Although A.G. had never met the Patient’s family dentist before, A.G.’s treatment plan was essentially an indictment of the substandard care the family dentist had provided to the Patient for thirty years. The family dentist’s statement that A.G.’s treatment plan was predatory was the only argument they could make to defend against the indictment of their own work made by the treatment plan.
By written submission and zealous defense at an ISC, the firm secured a dismissal for A.G. has returned to work with the stress of this matter lifted off their shoulders, and we are very happy for them.
