I smell a major PAYDAY!

and well deserved, I'd say

This guy was either tripping on drugs and wasn't aware that the bit had broke off or even possibly just came off the drill OR he knew and was hoping the problem would go away. Meanwhile this lady has suffered needlessly for all this time. Yeah, I'd sue too.

Although I agree there should be limits imposed on how much people can be rewarded, this lady and similar cases to this one should be compensated generously for their needless pain and suffering on top of the medicsl bills generated by this unfortunate occurence. I would also have to question this idiots ability to continue to practice.

Who is at fault? Seriously? Are you actually suggesting that this woman had something to do with leaving that 1 inch piece of a drill bit in her own head? I think we can establish that the dentist is at fault here. No reason to conjecture about it. Perhaps there is a valid reason why he left it there, other than not knowing that is broke off and didn't come out looking like it did going in. Maybe he thought it was one of those situations where trying to remove it would be more dangerous than just leaving it there where he believed that it would do no harm. Gosh. Maybe, but to even suggest that fault cannot be established sounds kind of stupid, don't you think?

Mo, Do you know this person's dental history? Had they ever had any dental work done before or since the surgery in question? What was the exact situation at the time of the surgery. I stand by my position that based on what was written in this article you can not know for sure who is at fault. But as I said, I agree the dentist has some explaining to do.

The point of my response was that based on the current system we are all going to pay for this, independent of whose fault it is.

Dave:
Interesting perspective, but, I have 2 comments:
1. The doctrine of Res Ipso Loquitur ("The thing speaks for itself") applies here. RIL is a doctrine where liability can be found without direct proof of negligence. The elements are :
1. The injury is not the type that happens unless someone is negligent.
2. The damage-causing item (drill bit) was in the SOLE possession, at the time of injury, of the person "charged".
3. There was NO contributory negligence on the part of the patient.
RIL has been applied where, say an airplane falls out of the sky, and terrorism is ruled out. As to the first element, absent terror, planes usually dont fall out of the sky unless SOMEONE was negligent. (whether pilot error, or mechanical defect, the airline cannot escape liability, as "safety" is a "non-delegable" duty.; as to the second prong, the plane was in the sole possession of the airline; 3rd prong - the passenger suing did nothing wrong.
The purpose of RIL is so that the victim who, for reasons beyond their control (and IN the control of the offending party) cant prove their case, are not left without a remedy.
HERE, drills dont usually get left inside someone's head without SOMEONE being negligent; the drill was in the sole possession of the doctor, and the patient did nothing wrong.

Now..another question to you:
With all the broohaha of tort reform..SHOULD the patient be able to sue ?

Jeff, thanks for the additional details. To you question, "Should the patient be able to sue?" I say, "of course." Without that, what would be the remedy?

I dont have an answer for you, Icstars...I dont really understand the issue of "tort reform" to begin with.
Look at my post #11 below.

The doctors are getting less and less money from insurance companies, medicare/cal, etc.;
The Cap on MedMal awards has not increased in 30 years;
The Medical malpractice Insurance companies keep raising doctors' premiums, even though the risk AND potential pay-outs are not rising, resulting in , as we all know, the escalating PROFITS of the insurance company/industry...
..and yet..the ONLY ones vilified in all this...is the lawyer.
NO ONE is advocating price controls on the insurance industry.
NO ONE is telling doctors they cant charge above a certain limit.
ALL I hear is tort reform about the money-grubbing PATIENT and ATTORNEY.
I just dont get it.

...it's all fine and good..until it's YOUR husband/son/etc., who gets injured.

davveg-1136394 must be a disinformationist for the health-care industry.

Jeff - Patients should absolutely have a mechanism to register complaints, resolve issues, and when appropriate receive just compenstation for their injuries I just don't believe that the current system is the most effecient or effective way to do it. A whole bunch of folks are getting rich (and it's not usually the patients) and we're paying for it by way of higher medical costs, insurance premiums, etc. And in reality it seldom results in getting bad doctors off the street. They just move somewhere else and pay more for malpractice insurance.

There has to be a better way. The problem is that we have lawyers making the laws and they really have no incentive to significantly reduce the earning potential of their profession. Maybe the politicians don't chase ambulances anymore but a lot of their buddies do...

I'm sorry, Dave...but the facts dont bare this out.
IF lawyers were running in system. WHY hasnt the MedMal cap been raised in 30 years ? WHY does the law NOT make the negligent doctor pay the patient's attorney's fees ?
Maybe there IS a better way....do YOU have suggestions ? because I dont.
It may not be a great system....but until there is a better one...it's the only one we have.

lk in la - nope, not tied to the health care industry in any way. Just an American that is getting tired of paying more and more for less and less and watching more of our GNP go towards paying for things that do not help America become competitive on a global scale.

Daveg - no one believes in workman's comp until they have an accident at the work place and need it to feed their family.

Same applies here, everyone hates lawsuits and can't 'believe' that people actually sue their DR (he is just SO nice!).

Until you've spent a year in and out of the hospital b/c some idiot didn't do their job - ie; keep track of the dental drill bit, don't criticize someone for exercising their rights.

You have also misidentified the issue, it has nothing to do with the rest of us paying for it. If this dentist keeps making stupid mistakes his insurance will rise, he will go out of business and we will all be safer.

The number of people who want to defend the dentist is scary. They all must have drills in their heads.

Saxon, lets see, you replied at 12:26 on a Thursday afternoon when most folks should be working. Is it possible you are currently living off a fat settlement check and hence your reply is not entirely unbiased?

If the dentist was truely negligent and left the drill bit there because he had a tee time and did not have time to remove it than I agree he or she should be punished. But that punishment should be that he loses his license and potential criminal charges. Making the rest of us pay more for dental care is not the answer.

Doctors, even good ones, do occasionally make mistakes and to ruin a good doctors career on a single honest mistake no matter how tragic is wrong. We really need good doctors. If a doctor continues to make mistakes than I would agree they need to consider another profession and if they don't do it on their own they should be encouraged to by others. But the current system does not do this.

Saxon... Your reply lacks intelligence and character.

Nope dave, after 45 years of work, and a health problem, I am semi-retired, wish i was not: every one makes mistakes, no one is ruined for a lapse of judgement or ability; however, who is going to reimburse the injured for their expenses?

"Saxon... Your reply lacks intelligence and character."

Actually, he's right on the money. Tort reform is nothing more than protecting the negligent from their own malfeasance, misfeasance and nonfeasance at the expense of those injured or killed through no fault of their own.

Saxon - thanks for your reply. After re-reading my post I think I was a bit rude and should apoligize. And I understand your point. I totally agree that we should have a mechanism to help those injured whether by negligence or honest mistake. I don't agree with pain and suffering, we all have pain and we all experience suffering, live with it.

My problem with the current system is that the only ones getting rich are lawyers and we are the ones paying for it. More often than not the actual victim gets very little. I have to believe there is a better mechanism than this.

Really? It was her fault? Nothing in this article states it was an elective surgery. She could have had part of her bone removed due to infection. Happened to me, twice. Once from a massive infection that almost killed me, and again when my dentist tried desperately to save my tooth. It was just not working out. The cavity was filled, but two months later pain shot through my mouth, so I had a root canal, then it still wasn't enough, so the tooth and bone was removed. The dentist did his job very well, he just knew my history and warned me about what may need to be done. Yes I brush and floss everyday. Just some people don't have great teeth, and I and my mother are a few of them. My sister? Her teeth are perfect and so are my dad's. Same foods eaten, same hygiene habits, same everything except I inherited my mother's bad teeth, which started crumbling at 21 for both of us, and she inherited my fathers, who at 67 still has all of his.

Elective or not, if a dentist or surgeon, makes an error than causes harm he or she is at fault. Determining if the fault was malpractice or negligence is what is required and they are not the same thing. Either way, the injured person accepts a risk going in to any procedure, elective or not, but that risk applies to an acceptable risk that a surgery may not turn out as expected, but not to a blatant and/or gross error on the part of the surgeon. However, since we do not know if this is something that could have been foreseen, and whether or not the dentist thought that trying to retrieve the broken piece of bit would be a more dangerous situation for the patient than leaving it alone (this is done all the time with bullets in the body) remains to be determined . However, it is still the dentist's fault that the piece of bit is there. Establishing malpractice or negligence, or a foreseeable situation is what has to happen now. Either way, the patient deserves the cost of removal of the piece of bit and all hospital and medical and medicine espenses to be paid by either the dentist or the dentist's insurance.

So i suppose you've never had a cavity or been to a dentist in your entire life and your teeth must be perfect, right, saxon?

What ? Are you all SO deferential to the medicine gods ?
If you drive a car, "make a mistake" and hurt someone...should there be no remedy ? (I mean, after all, by getting IN a car, arent you assuming a risk ?)
If your LAWYER screwed up a case, through his/her "mistake" you'd all be the FIRST to scream "sue the bastard"...if your accountant missed something that cost you money with the IRS, you'd have no problem suing HIM/her. If your engineer designed your slope where water pooled at your home, costing you thousands to fix, you'd just say "bygones", right ?
But...it's different when it comes to a LAWYER. This woman has pain for a year...the Dentist is just going to say "sorry", and pay her, right ? So, she goes to a lawyer...and HE'S the a-hole in all this, right ?
DAVE - you dont believe in pain and suffering ? huh ? so, the most she should get for HIS error, is her medical bills being paid for the removal surgery ? What if she took time off from work ? would you, magnanimously give her lost wages ? and, of course, what about the lawyer...does SHE pay for him ?

LOOK AT NEWSVINE January 18th...the story seeded re a dr. removing the wrong kidney...HOW would you compensate THAT patient ? What type of "tort" reform does THAT case deserve ?

Saxton's teeth may be perfect but lets talk about his brain,,is that working properly? "it's this woman's fault"?

Saxton's heart is more in need of repair than his brain or teeth!

Saxon must be a disinformationist for the health-care industry.

I really suggest you go back and read my post, I was attempting to bring out the crazy defense the insurance industry uses!

dave, your point that the injured sometimes gets very little, in many case you are correct; if Medicare, medicaid or insurance, any amount spent by those groups must be repaid first; plus an future medical expenses that those three may be liable in the future is offset; Many States now have a malpractice reform, whereby the first payee is only liable up to a set limit, after that the taxpayers pick up the rest Thu the States own Malpractice coverage, which covers all health care workers from the janitor in the hospital to the surgeon, it is the only solution so far that appears to be working; however it does put a burden on the taxpayers of that State.

Really , Rex ?
And, Do you think the patient will get compensated WITHOUT a lawyer ? Or, are you saying that the lawyer should work for free ?
Should that Doctor's insurance company lawyer work for free too ?

Lawyers are robots with a voice box. They don't work hard if you ask me for what they get to steal from "clients aka suckers"I know it is what it is but if people that sued would settle for a reasonable amount and if the Ins. co'.s were honest, we wouldn't need these middle men opportunistic thieving skimmers and parasitic "lawyers"

I'm sure alot of these sleaze bag "lYERS" eventually get into practices with similar cases he's familiar with, that he knows by heart. Then he doesn't have to work so HARD looking things up and researching the best ways to spin the case that day.

NoWORK:>
WE are robots with voiceboxes.... a.k.a. "advocates". It is not our job to decide what is fair and just. THAT is for a judge of jury; nor is it the JOB of the insurance company's lawyer to be fair and just....he/she is an advocate as well. We can suggest and advise our clients that a settlement is fair - but, if THEY disagree, we work for THEM. (you).

Understand something - IF we were to accept LESS money than we COULD get in any particular case "because we thought it was fair", the State Bar would pull our license. (same thing re the insurance company lawyer, re giving "us" more than THEY thought we deserved).

You ARE correct, in that insurance companies do NOT deal "fairly" with injured persons - that is NOT their job, either. THEIR job is to keep the highest bottom line for their stockholders.

I dont see you vilifying any of them....you sound bitter. I assume it's because you got taken down a peg or two from a lawyer - probably your ex-wife's.

ok, Hartley - your solution takes care of the dentist...now, what about the PATIENT ?

Harleyman, as I replied to Mo above, do you know the patients medical history? Did she have any dental work before or after the surgery in question? To say you are 'sure' of something based on the information in this article is actually a bit scary. A greek philosopher (unfortunately I can't remember which one) said that one of the first traits of wisdom is knowing what you don't know. I really think this is one of those cases.

I was really amused after the famous OJ Simpson murder trial when the reporters would interview folks on the street and ask them if OJ was guilty. Pretty much every response fell in one of two camps. They were sure he was guilty or sure he was innocent. Reality is there are probably only 3 people who know for sure who killed Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman and 2 of them ain't talkin.

If a dentist puts a drill in your mouth and then takes it out and the bit is not there it's pretty much a sure thing that it's in the patients mouth. at the very least he should have xrayed the tooth to see if it was still in there. It does not take a genius to figure that out. Medical history has nothing to do with neglect or stupidity.

I bet that when the slimeball saw that his drill bit was missing from the drill...he added the cost of it to the bill so he could buy another one.

There is no way that he didn't know that he had left a medical tool in her head. He obviously didn't care...he probably wasn't even concerned that it could shift after she left and end up in her brain.

Pull the scum's license!!!

Boy, you said a mouthful..........

We need a MedMal law that has some TEETH to it.
(sorry- couldnt resist)

I didnt really mean that...it was said "tongue in cheek".

...and I'm SURE that the drill bit was discovered in a "cavity search."
(ok, I'm done now)

Jeff, are you kidding us?

"He works rthis case for2 years,takes the RISK of not getting a penny at the end. What other professional takes THAT type of risk?" (He"works" it alright.).

I'm sure they take that "RISK" because they got their butts covered from a couple other cases they manipulated to make a few HUNDRED thousand for that year alone..PLEASE... They're nothing but legal theives.Kinda like the GOVERNMENT.(Mostly LAWYERS).

No...I am NOT kidding, and, your post reeks of ignorance.
ANY lawyer will tell you that, of ALL personal injury actions, MedMal is the hardest to prove. The Patient Loses MUCH more often that then win..and the reason is simple:
In professional negligence actions, not every mistake is actionable. The doctor has to make a mistake that is a departure from the "standard of care" - so, how do you prove that ? You (and the other side) hires expert witnesses.
Now - insurance companies hire the BEST experts. The plaintiff CAN hire those same experts, at 1000 an hour (YES - 1,000.00 per hour)...but, since that insurance company hires that expert 10 times a year (minimum) that expert charges them a fraction of that. ALSO, IF that expert opines against that certain insurance company, the insurance company wont use him again, causing loss of business to the expert.
SO - what we have is one expert saying "yea", one expert saying "nay"....and, considering how deferential this room is to the doctors, it is no wonder that they take the defendant's expert's opinion over the plaintiff's most of the time.

If you choose to drive to the store and some drunk hits you and you are crippled for life is it your fault for chooseing to go to the store?? Or is the the drunks fault because of his judgement call to drive after drinking??

Yup, CarolAnn..."that's life".
So- when that CPA of yours, through his negligence, costs you 10k with the IRS...that's life, right ?
When that soil engineer gives you the "go ahead" to build your house on that lot (only to find after building, that your house is on quicksand) - that's life, right ?
WHEN that guy blows a red light, slams into you, causing you permanent scars, he should pay your doctor bills, but nothing more, because..that's life, right ?

..and "she suffered by choice "?!?!? What's THAT all about ?

They will need a Doctor to repair the injury. But wait Obama is trying to do away with them through health care reform.

Try explaining your not being able to pass airport security. Your excuse could be I'm just a "bit" off.

Sheer speculation and conjecture, Jen.
"Ms. Sue Happy" quote just evidences your prejudice.

Since when does a dental assistant give counts on drill bits? I know for a fact that the dentist only puts one drill in your mouth at a time and it only has one bit in it. I really don't think he needs someone to count to one for him. If he is that stupid he never would have made it through grade school much less dental school.