Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

plaintiffdefendantappealtrialverdicttestimonymalpractice
plaintiffdefendantappealtrialverdicttestimonymalpractice

Related Cases

Fossier v. Morgan, 474 S.W.2d 801
View Case »
Slusher v. Ospital by Ospital, 777 P.2d 437
View Case »
Bragan ex rel. Bragan v. Symanzik, 263 Mich.App. 324, 687 N.W.2d 881
View Case »
Lundgren v. Fultz, 354 N.W.2d 25
View Case »
Welch v. Bancorp Management Advisors, Inc., 296 Or. 208, 675 P.2d 172
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Braswell v. Stinnett, 99 So.3d 175

Facts

In December 2004, Bennie Braswell visited Dr. Beth Stinnett for a dental procedure that required anesthesia. Following the procedure, Braswell experienced significant swelling and pain, leading to permanent nerve damage. He brought a malpractice suit against Dr. Stinnett, relying on expert testimony from Dr. Martin Harris Turk, who was later revealed to be unlicensed. The trial court ultimately found that Dr. Turk did not adequately establish the standard of care required for the case.

In December 2004, Bennie Braswell visited his dentist, Dr. Beth Stinnett, for a “deep scalling [sic] and root plaining [sic]” procedure. Because this procedure requires cleaning below the gumline, Dr. Stinnett injected Braswell with an anesthetic which, according to Braswell, was “excruciating.” Braswell testified that, the night following the procedure, his face began to swell, his mouth continued to hurt, and the right side of his face swelled to twice its normal size. While this swelling lasted only a month, Braswell claimed he suffered permanent damage, including the loss of feeling in his upper right lip and nostril, slurred speech from time to time, and an occasional stinging pain in his lips.

Issue

Did the patient's expert establish the requisite standard of care and a breach of that standard in the dental malpractice claim against the dentist?

Did the patient's expert establish the requisite standard of care and a breach of that standard in the dental malpractice claim against the dentist?

Rule

To establish dental malpractice, a plaintiff must produce expert testimony to establish a prima facie case, including the requisite standard of care and that the defendant failed to conform to that standard.

To establish dental malpractice, a plaintiff must—as a matter of law—produce expert testimony to establish a prima facie case. The expert must establish the “requisite standard of care” and that the defendant “failed to conform to [that] standard.”

Analysis

The court analyzed Dr. Turk's testimony and found that he did not establish the standard of care or any breach of it. Although he provided some general statements about the administration of anesthesia, he failed to specify how Dr. Stinnett deviated from the standard of care or what that standard was. The court emphasized that the law requires a qualified expert to define the standard of care for a minimally competent dentist, which Dr. Turk did not do.

A careful reading of Dr. Turk's testimony reveals that he established neither the requisite standard of care nor a breach of it. He testified as follows: A. Generally you deposit your anesthetic two or three millimeters above the tooth if that's the purpose of what was going to happen that day, the scaling and the root plaining [sic]. All that is standard. To injure the nerve that's up here[,] one of two things has to happen. Either the dentist lost her orientation or she wasn't watching what [s]he was doing. There is no other way the needle could have been up there because that is not the standard of care. That is how the nerve was injured.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' judgment and reinstated the trial court's directed verdict in favor of Dr. Stinnett, concluding that the plaintiff's expert failed to meet the necessary legal standards.

Because the plaintiff's expert failed establish the standard of care—or any breach of it—we reinstate and affirm the trial court's grant of directed verdict in the defendant's favor, and we reverse the Court of Appeals' judgment.

Who won?

Dr. Stinnett prevailed in the case because the court found that the plaintiff's expert did not establish the required standard of care or any breach of it, which is essential for a malpractice claim.

Dr. Stinnett prevailed in the case because the court found that the plaintiff's expert did not establish the required standard of care or any breach of it, which is essential for a malpractice claim.

You must be