A former restaurant worker who alleged work by two dentists 害羞草研究所� including one who practises in South Surrey 害羞草研究所� 害羞草研究所渄ramatically altered害羞草研究所� her life has had her negligence claim dismissed in B.C. Supreme Court.
In the claim, Maria De Sousa alleged Dr. John Rogers 害羞草研究所� of White Rock Dental Group 害羞草研究所� breached the standard of care when he extracted a lower molar during her first appointment with him in June 2011, 害羞草研究所渄espite not being able to find an issue with the tooth that would justify this most aggressive of treatment methods.害羞草研究所�
Dr. Michael Racich, she alleged, breached the standard of care when he 害羞草研究所渃hose to place three implants害羞草研究所� despite 害羞草研究所渒nowledge of the possibility of neuropathic pain.害羞草研究所� Those treatments occurred between December 2011 and January 2013.
However, in reasons for judgment posted last Friday (Feb. 1), Justice Stephen Kelleher found that evidence presented 害羞草研究所渄oes not establish害羞草研究所� that either of the dentists breached the standard of care, or that their actions caused the damages suffered.
In his reasons, Kelleher notes 害羞草研究所渁 history of treatment害羞草研究所� for De Sousa害羞草研究所檚 extracted tooth dating back to 2004 and involving at least 11 other dental professionals, as well as a neurosurgeon. Several of those professionals testified in the civil trial, which was heard last year over 13 days in June, July and November.
Kelleher made his ruling on Feb. 1.
According to the reasons for judgment, the court heard that De Sousa was a patient with one South Surrey dentist for just over two years starting in July 2004. In that time, De Sousa did not follow recommendations for regular visits, nor did she proceed with a recommended crown on the tooth in question, which was suggested following a 害羞草研究所渇ractured restoration害羞草研究所� on the tooth that De Sousa said was 害羞草研究所渢rapping food,害羞草研究所� the court heard.
Procedures performed or recommended by various dentists over the years following included root canals, crowns and specialist referrals. There were also suggestions the pain could be due to a neurological condition.
De Sousa testified that after Rogers removed her tooth, she was left with a sharp burning pain. While she denied insisting Rogers extract the tooth, she agreed that she had said, in her examination for discovery, that she 害羞草研究所渁sked害羞草研究所� for the extraction.
De Sousa also testified that implants were the only treatment Racich suggested, that all she was given to prepare for them was a tube of Colgate toothpaste, that she had a lot of pain after the procedures and that Racich told her it was neuropathic pain.
De Sousa害羞草研究所檚 husband and daughters testified that De Sousa often complained of 害羞草研究所渂urning pain害羞草研究所� on the right side of her mouth after the extraction. She stopped dancing and driving, and lost interest in gardening, among other things, the court heard.
A neurologist testified that De Sousa has persistant idiopathic facial pain; described in the court document as 害羞草研究所渁 disorder of unknown cause which can be exacerbated by dental procedures.害羞草研究所�
Those procedures, the neurologist testified, are commonly an effort to address the initial complaint, but are often futile as the disorder is 害羞草研究所渢ypically not of primary dental origin.害羞草研究所�
In his reasons, Kelleher said De Sousa害羞草研究所檚 recollection of the circumstances or her treatment and her interaction with the dentists who saw her 害羞草研究所渨as, to put it kindly, imperfect.害羞草研究所�
害羞草研究所淢s. De Sousa害羞草研究所檚 evidence must be considered in light of her relatively poor memory. Moreover, much of what she told the Court is inconsistent with the 害羞草研究所榩robabilities of the case as a whole,害羞草研究所櫤π卟菅芯克鶟 the judgment states.
Kelleher dismissed the evidence of one expert called by the plaintiff, noting 害羞草研究所渄eeply flawed害羞草研究所� instructions from counsel that included asking the expert to provide an opinion 害羞草研究所渞egarding Maria De Sousa害羞草研究所檚 general disability arising from her medical malpractice injuries and the extent to which this interferes with her activities害羞草研究所π卟菅芯克鶟
The instructions 害羞草研究所渟uggest that (the expert) was instructed to assume that there has been negligence and medical malpractice,害羞草研究所� Kelleher found.
害羞草研究所淎s such, any conclusion reached by an expert based on these instructions is, as the defendants argue, a self-fulfilling prophecy.害羞草研究所�
Kelleher described the defendants害羞草研究所� evidence as 害羞草研究所渦nshaken in cross-examination.害羞草研究所�
Kelleher found that De Sousa has a history of self-diagnosis and of refusing treatment when she disagrees with the professional. While he said that is her right, 害羞草研究所渋t does not constitute tortious conduct on the part of the defendants.害羞草研究所�
