California: Malpractice Payment of $105,000 for Injury to a Female Patient in her 40s (2008)

In 2008, a medical malpractice insurance company made a payment on behalf of a dentist in California for approximately* $105,000. Payment was made in response to a claim of medical malpractice claim involving what was described as a "minor temporary injury" to a female patient between 40 and 50 years old. The nature of the claim is broadly described as: "treatment related." The payment report submitted by a medical malpractice payer described the allegations in the claim as "Problem with Appliance, Prostheses, Orthotic, or Device."

* The payment amount is approximate because the National Practitioner Data Bank codes payments as a range value. The report's description of $105,000 corresponds to a malpractice payment somewhere between $100,001 and $110,000.

Claim at a Glance

Year of Payment: 2008

Location: California

Allegation: Problem with Appliance, Prostheses, Orthotic, or Device

Act or Omission: 2004

Payment Range: Between $100,001 and $110,000

Nature of Claim: Treatment Related

Payer: Insurance Company - Primary Coverage

Type of Care: Outpatient

Reporter: A Medical Malpractice Payer

Claim Insights

With respect to any medical malpractice payment, there are three major components of any claim. First, there is the act or omission that gave rise to an injury and whether the provider departed from an accepted standard of practice. Second, there is the nature of the injury itself, which includes several factors like its severity, duration, the impact on the patient’s life, the age and general health of the patient, along with many other elements. Third, there needs to be a causal connection between the negligent act or omission by the provider and the injury itself. Even with a showing of negligence, a medical provider is not legally responsible for an outcome that was not caused by the negligence.

With this in mind, the Data Bank does have some information that can give context to the medical malpractice payments, including the patient’s age, gender, whether it was inpatient or outpatient care, the type of malpractice or medical mistake that was alleged, and the ultimate outcome to the patient.

The information has significant limitations, however, that everyone should keep in mind. For one thing, the information is usually self-reported by the healthcare provider and his or her representatives. When reviewing this information, you should consider whether the patient would have described his or her injury as “minor” or “temporary” or “emotional only.” Further, there are important aspects of any claim valuation that simply cannot work in a database. Flagrant negligence might be coded the same way as what could be described as a smaller error, and one would have no way of knowing from these data. But even with these limitations and even where some required information is missing from any particular report, each of the payment reports in the database have enough to provide some insightful information that can help evaluate medical malpractice claims going forward.

A medical provider's malpractice history can be extremely insightful. A long history of malpractice claims and discipline can certainly affect whether a matter is resolved and for how much. One of the most important goals of the National Practitioner Data Bank is to track providers' disciplinary and malpractice payment history throughout interstate moves or new employment situations.

In addition to this particular malpractice payment, this provider has two other types of reports on record that are worth noting. First, this provider has a total of three malpractice payments in the database. To put this number in perspective, throughout over 200,000 payment records, approximately 55% of them are associated with providers with multiple payments. This provider's total of three malpractice payments is more than 82% of all providers in the database, which is limited to providers with malpractice payment history.

Second, this provider has two reports on record associated with professional society actions. In other words, a professional society took some type of action against the provider. These type of reports are extremely rare in the database as less than 1 in 1,000 providers with a malpractice payment on their record have a reported action by a professional society.

Provider Detail

Alerts 5

California

Dentist

Age: Between 30 and 40 Years Old in 2004 When Allegations Arose

Education Completed: Between 1980 and 1990

Malpractice Payments 3
There are other payments in the database associated with this provider:
YearStateAmountAllegation
2008California$105,000Problem with Appliance, Prostheses, Orthotic, or Device
2015California$8,750Failure to Treat
2017California$37,500Failure to Treat
Professional Society Reports 2
If a professional society has a formal peer review process, they must report an adverse finding related to professional competence or conduct.
Payments

Similar Claims

Here are other claims involving an allegation of Problem with Appliance, Prostheses, Orthotic, or Device and an outcome of what was described as a "minor temporary injury" to a patient between 40 and 50 years old.
YearStateAmountAllegation
2024Florida$515,000Problem with Appliance, Prostheses, Orthotic, or Device
2023Colorado$32,500Problem with Appliance, Prostheses, Orthotic, or Device
2022New York$155,000Problem with Appliance, Prostheses, Orthotic, or Device
2022Washington$47,500Problem with Appliance, Prostheses, Orthotic, or Device
2022Washington$47,500Problem with Appliance, Prostheses, Orthotic, or Device
2021Florida$1,500Problem with Appliance, Prostheses, Orthotic, or Device
2021California$82,500Problem with Appliance, Prostheses, Orthotic, or Device
2021Pennsylvania$195,000Problem with Appliance, Prostheses, Orthotic, or Device
2020Arizona$97,500Problem with Appliance, Prostheses, Orthotic, or Device
2020Illinois$375,000Problem with Appliance, Prostheses, Orthotic, or Device