Dental malpractice cases in Turkey during 1991–2000

doi:10.1016/j.jcfm.2005.01.003

Journal of Clinical Forensic Medicine

Volume 12, Issue 3, June 2005, Pages 137-142

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcfm.2005.01.003 Get rights and content

Abstract

Objectives

Doctors can face punitive and legal consequences if patients are not satisfied with the medical treatment. The purpose of this study is to provide a database for dental malpractice cases in Turkey.

Methods

This study is based on the decisions of High Health Council (HHC) in medical malpractice cases. Between 1991 and 2000, 1548 decisions were made by the HHC. 14 (0.9%) of these decisions were related to dentistry. This study examines the 8 decisions under which the dentists are found to be at fault.

Results

As three of these cases are based on the same facts they are examined together. Of the dentists consulted on 11 decisions, nine were male and two were female. In four cases the HHC gave its expert opinion before the trial, in five cases during criminal trial and in two cases during compensation trial. In five cases patients received surgical treatment, in four cases prosthetic treatment and in two cases endodontic treatment. Nine of these treatments were carried out at private dental practice. In eight reported decisions negligence and inadequate treatment were identified. Most of negligence was caused during surgical intervention. In two cases, treatments resulted in death.

Conclusions

Like all other medical staff dentists are under the obligation to comply with the legal rules in the country they practice. They also have to consider ethical principles as well as the acceptable standards and protocols of diagnosis and treatment.

Introduction

Various aspects of doctor–patient relationship have been discussed since Hippocrates. Increasing use of new technology in medicine has given the doctor–patient relationship new dimensions. The issue of medical practice errors is one example. The patient’s claims for damages have recently attracted much public attention especially by mass media.

Under today’s developments in medical technology doctors may take more risks. The patient and/or the relatives of the patient can go to court and sue the medical staff when they do not receive sufficient medical treatment or when they think they are harmed as a result of a faulty treatment intervention. The increased number of compensation cases brought against doctors in recent years has become a major concern for the medical industry not only in Turkey but also throughout the world.[1], [2], [3], [4]

In Turkey, dentists, like all other health care professionals, are responsible for the damage they cause during their medical practice. If a doctor’s action risks a patient’s life when the patient is under his/her care, the doctor will be held legally responsible.[5], [6], [7], [8]

In our country, malpractice cases are not covered within the framework of a specific legislation. These cases are examined under the general rules of law. Choosing the expert person and/or committee has a great importance in the investigation of malpractice cases. In compensation cases the expert witness can be a doctor, health institute and/or a committee. The official body whose expert opinion needs to be taken in claims related to criminal law suits in Turkey is the High Health Council, which is under the control of the Ministry of Health. The HHC was established in 1930 and consists of 16 members. Eleven of its members who are experts in their fields work on a permanent basis and five of the members work in the Ministry of Health. One of the members of 16 has been chosen from among the dentists. The decisions of the HHC are based on the medical and legal documents presented in the relevant file. Legal authorities do not have to comply with decisions of the HHC.[9], [10]

The purpose of this study is to provide a database for dental malpractice cases in Turkey. Cases which were referred to the legal system have been evaluated. We have examined 8 cases where the dental practioner was found to be at fault.

Section snippets

Materials and methods

Between 1991 and 2000, the HHC examined 1548 cases and out of 1548 decisions only 14(0.9%) of them were related to dentistry. The study examined these 14 cases. As three of these cases were based on the same facts they were examined together. The authors did not examine any of the patients clinically who made a complaint against the dentists. The documents were studied in relation to details of the complaint, the location of the event, diagnosis, medical application, age and gender of the

Results

A total of eleven cases were examined within the content of the study.In four of these cases the HHC gave its opinion before the case went on trial, in five of them during criminal cases and in two of them in compensation cases (Table 1).

The cases in which the dentists were not found at fault were not further examined in this study (Table 1). These cases cover; causing injury to the lip mucosa during tooth extraction, death due to anaphylactic shock developed after the injection of local

Discussion

Like all other specialists, dentists aim to provide a healthier life for their patients. But despite all the efforts sometimes undesired results may arise. In such cases dentists face legal action.

In this study, it has been found out that within a period of 10 years only 11 cases concerning dentistry have been examined by the HHC. This figure is lower than expected and we believe does not reflect the real level of malpractices in Turkey. We believe that such figure results from the fact that:

References (16)

D.A. Conrad et al.
Malpractice premiums in 1992: results of a national survey of dentists
J Am Dental Assoc
(1995)
S.D. Keeling et al.
The malpractice morass and practice activities of orthodontists
Am J Orthodont Dentofacial Orthopedic
(1990)
J.T. Jastak
Morbidity and mortality from pharmacosedation and general anesthesia in the dental office
J Oral Maxillofacial Surg
(1992)
H.C. Whitmire
Medicolegal considerations for office-based anesthesia in dentistry
Dental Clin North Am
(1999)
M.A.J. Eijkman et al.
Defensive dental behaviour: illusion or reality
Int Dental J
(1997)
I. Venta et al.
Malpractice claims for permanent nerve injuries related to third molar removals
Acta Odontolog Scand
(1998)
N. Clark et al.
Dental malpractice; Baseline data from insurance claims closed in 1970, with analyses
Public Health Report
(1984)
L. Doyal et al.
Informed consent and the practice of good dentistry
Br Dental J
(1995)

There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (20)

Dental malpractice lawsuit in the madinah region
2024, Saudi Dental Journal
The number of reports of dental malpractice cases has been increasing in recent years. The purpose of this study was to assess the data and outcomes related to dental malpractice claims in Madina City, Saudi Arabia.
This study conducts a retrospective study of dental malpractice claims in Madina city, Saudi Arabia assessing 97 cases of dental malpractice claims from the year 2016 to 2022.
the study showed that the highest percentage of cases (29.9%) were reported guilty in the year 2021. with the highest number of claims (30%) related to the prosthodontic specialty. Most of the cases were against general practitioners (64.9%). Most of the cases (71.1%) lacked signed informed consent.
To decrease the number of dental claims, valuing specialties and obtaining informed consent should be considered by all dentists.
Dentists’ Legal Liability and Duty of Explanation in Dental Malpractice Litigation in Japan
2021, International Dental Journal
Citation Excerpt :
An analysis of dental malpractice litigation in Spain found that inappropriate behaviour regarding patients’ provision of informed consent was a major cause of litigation.4 In Turkey, it was revealed that almost all negligence that occurred during surgical treatment was deemed to be liable in some cases, not because of the treatment per se, but because of the lack of patient consent.10 A study from the United Kingdom suggested that dentists who experienced malpractice complaints were often lacking when it came to communicating with their patients.11
Dental litigation accounts for approximately 10% of medical cases in Japan. This study sought to identify factors related to dentists’ legal liability in Japan, including their duty to explain procedures and treatments to their patients.
We analysed court decisions in 166 dental malpractice cases litigated in Japan between 1978 and 2017. To identify factors related to the legal liability of dentists, an analysis was performed to evaluate the associations among patient characteristics, dentist characteristics, litigation, and dentists’ explanatory behaviour.
Of the 36 cases related to dentist liability, the study identified 23 cases (63.9%) of litigation in which the dentists were found to be in violation of their duty to provide an explanation. Regarding the severity of injury, the ratio of death and permanent disability was significantly higher in decisions in which the purpose of the explanation was something other than obtaining the patient's consent compared with decisions to obtain the patient's consent (P = .014).
In cases in which the dentist was found legally responsible, the proportion of cases involving procedural negligence with the explanation of medical guidance was significantly higher. Dentists should pay careful attention not only to the patient's consent but also to their explanations, including “medical guidance.” Moreover, they should recognise that inappropriate explanations correlate with serious errors.
Professional legislation knowledge of dentists and psychological effects of negligence
2021, Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine
The aim of the present study was to evaluate the extent to which a group of general dentists and specialists had knowledge of the professional laws and psychological effects of negligence on them.
The sample in this cross-sectional study consisted of 400 dentists (General dentists and specialists) in Isfahan city, Iran. Having designed the questionnaire and confirmed its validity and reliability, we published online to be completed by the dentists. The obtained data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, t-test, and ANOVA test. Optimal knowledge was determined to be 75%, and P-value<0.05 was considered to be statistically significant.
The majority of the dentists (75%) had poor and very poor knowledge. The mean score of knowledge (range: 0–21, maximum obtainable: 24) was 9.58 ± 4.5. Sixty dentists (15%) reported they had experienced negligence. Further, 278 (69.5%) reported they had somehow experienced the occurrence of malpractice during their practical experience. Legal negligence was more prevalent among the general dentists than specialists (17.8 VS 8%, p < 0.001). Regarding the legal complaint history, a significant difference was observed between the males and females (P = 0.015) and among different categories of work experience years (P = 0.000). Moreover, among those who had a history of a legal complaint, 96.7% showed psychological symptoms, 70% had physical symptoms, and 80% displayed social symptoms related to the stress following legal complaints.
Findings of this study indicated that refining the knowledge of the rules and regulations of the dental profession should be enhanced by considering appropriate training courses in the curricula and continuous education programs. More than half of the participants considered themselves guilty of negligence in this regard.
The Indian dental litigation landscape: An analysis of judgments on dental negligence claims in Indian Consumer Redressal Forums
2019, Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine
Citation Excerpt :
Hence a vast majority of the CRF cases in India are inclined towards oral surgery. Similar oral surgery preponderance had been reported from Turkey.16 Few observations in the present study have no precedence, hence the results could not be discussed in light of other researches.
Dental malpractice/negligence litigations against dentists in India is not widely studied. The aim of this study is to report the Indian dentist related litigation landscape in consumer redressal forum (CRF) and to understand more of the nature of the same.
111 cases of judgments of dental malpractice in Indian CRF were collected. Useful information was extracted, reported in a grid and statistically analyzed. Data was compared by claim, specialty, treatment offered, days lapsed and compensation awarded. P ≤ 0.05 was taken as statistically significant.
In all, 44 (39.63%) dentists were found guilty. Thirty dentists had produced at least one evidence in their favor. Among them, 23 outcomes were in dentist's favor.(P = 0.02) The mean wait for final judgment was 1945 ± 1286(193–6762) days. The mean compensation claimed was INR 577287 ± 905898. Presence of evidence (dentists/patients) had an impact on the days to reach a judgment as well as compensation.
Indian dental litigation landscape CRF has been described for the first time. We identified that CRF litigation of dental malpractice are few, as compared to number of procedures performed in India. Oral surgical procedures were often involved and 40% of instances, dentists were guilty and mean compensation awarded was INR 103998 ± 158976.
Evaluation of dental malpractice cases in Kerman province (2000-2011)
2013, Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine
Citation Excerpt :
The prevalence of patient claims varies around the world. Ozdemir and colleagues reported that between 1991 and 2000, 1548 decisions were made by the High Health Council (HHC), 14 (0.9%) of which were related to dentistry.14 In this study, the average annual rate of dental malpractice claims was reported to be 0.9 in 100,000, which is similar to the results of a research conducted by Kiani and Sheikhazadi.11
Dental practitioners, like other health-care professionals, might engage with legal claims and be sued if patients are not satisfied with the dental treatment. The aim of this study was to provide data on dental malpractice claims in Kerman, Iran, from 2000 to 2011.
In the present descriptive cross-sectional research, a retrospective evaluation was carried out of dental malpractice claims in Kerman, Iran, during 2000–2011, based on the decisions of expert committees in medical malpractice cases by the Kerman Legal Medicine Organization and the Medical Council of the Islamic Republic of Iran. A valid and reliable questionnaire was designed in three sections, based on previous studies. The SPSS 18 software program was used for data analysis.
During the 11-year period, 64 decisions had been taken in relation to dental malpractices. The majority of complaints involved fixed prosthodontics and oral surgery usually by private practice and general dental practitioners. In 56.7% of clinical cases and 40% of non-clinical cases of malpractice claims, dental practitioners had been found guilty.
Like all other medical staff, dental practitioners are under the obligation to comply with the laws of the country they practice. They also have to adhere to ethical principles as well as the acceptable standards and protocols of diagnosis and treatment. These data can alert them to the need for greater care and professionalism when treating their patients.
A five-year survey for dental malpractice claims in Tehran, Iran
2009, Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine
Citation Excerpt :
The patient and/or the relatives of the patient can sue the medical staff when they do not receive sufficient medical treatment or when they think they are harmed as a result of a faulty treatment intervention. The increased number of compensated cases brought against doctors in recent years has become a major concern for the medical industry not only in Iran but also throughout the world.2–6 Complaints from patients about dental treatment are internationally on the increase, especially in the USA.7–9
Dentists, like other doctors, can face punitive and legal consequences if patients are not satisfied with the dental treatment. The purpose of this study is to provide a database for dental malpractice claims in Tehran.
We conducted a retrospective study of dental malpractice claims In Tehran, between 2002 and 2006, based on the decisions of expert committees in medical malpractice cases by Tehran’s Legal Medicine Organization and Islamic Republic of Iran’s Medical Council.
During these 5 years, 412 decisions related to dental malpractice were made. The majority of complaints were in fixed prosthodontics and oral surgery and also most of them concerned the private sector. Most of the cases were against general dentists. In the 56.7% of clinical cases and 40% of non-clinical cases of malpractice claims, dentists were found faulty.
Like all other medical staff, dentists are under the obligation to comply with the legal rules in the country they practice. They also have to consider ethical principles as well as the acceptable standards and protocols of diagnosis and treatment. These data can alert them to the need for greater care and ethical professionalism when treating their patients.

View all citing articles on Scopus

View full text

Original communicationDental malpractice cases in Turkey during 1991–2000

Abstract

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Introduction

Section snippets

Materials and methods

Results

Discussion

J Am Dental Assoc

Am J Orthodont Dentofacial Orthopedic

J Oral Maxillofacial Surg

Dental Clin North Am

Int Dental J

Malpractice claims for permanent nerve injuries related to third molar removals

Acta Odontolog Scand

Dental malpractice; Baseline data from insurance claims closed in 1970, with analyses

Public Health Report

Informed consent and the practice of good dentistry

Br Dental J

Original communication
Dental malpractice cases in Turkey during 1991–2000