A former restaurant worker who alleged work by two dentists 乌鸦传媒� including one who practises in South Surrey 乌鸦传媒� 乌鸦传媒渄ramatically altered乌鸦传媒� her life has had her negligence claim dismissed in B.C. Supreme Court.
In the claim, Maria De Sousa alleged Dr. John Rogers 乌鸦传媒� of White Rock Dental Group 乌鸦传媒� breached the standard of care when he extracted a lower molar during her first appointment with him in June 2011, 乌鸦传媒渄espite not being able to find an issue with the tooth that would justify this most aggressive of treatment methods.乌鸦传媒�
Dr. Michael Racich, she alleged, breached the standard of care when he 乌鸦传媒渃hose to place three implants乌鸦传媒� despite 乌鸦传媒渒nowledge of the possibility of neuropathic pain.乌鸦传媒� 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 乌鸦传媒渄oes not establish乌鸦传媒� that either of the dentists breached the standard of care, or that their actions caused the damages suffered.
In his reasons, Kelleher notes 乌鸦传媒渁 history of treatment乌鸦传媒� for De Sousa乌鸦传媒檚 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 乌鸦传媒渇ractured restoration乌鸦传媒� on the tooth that De Sousa said was 乌鸦传媒渢rapping food,乌鸦传媒� 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 乌鸦传媒渁sked乌鸦传媒� 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乌鸦传媒檚 husband and daughters testified that De Sousa often complained of 乌鸦传媒渂urning pain乌鸦传媒� 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 乌鸦传媒渁 disorder of unknown cause which can be exacerbated by dental procedures.乌鸦传媒�
Those procedures, the neurologist testified, are commonly an effort to address the initial complaint, but are often futile as the disorder is 乌鸦传媒渢ypically not of primary dental origin.乌鸦传媒�
In his reasons, Kelleher said De Sousa乌鸦传媒檚 recollection of the circumstances or her treatment and her interaction with the dentists who saw her 乌鸦传媒渨as, to put it kindly, imperfect.乌鸦传媒�
乌鸦传媒淢s. De Sousa乌鸦传媒檚 evidence must be considered in light of her relatively poor memory. Moreover, much of what she told the Court is inconsistent with the 乌鸦传媒榩robabilities of the case as a whole,乌鸦传媒櫸谘淮綕 the judgment states.
Kelleher dismissed the evidence of one expert called by the plaintiff, noting 乌鸦传媒渄eeply flawed乌鸦传媒� instructions from counsel that included asking the expert to provide an opinion 乌鸦传媒渞egarding Maria De Sousa乌鸦传媒檚 general disability arising from her medical malpractice injuries and the extent to which this interferes with her activities乌鸦传媒ξ谘淮綕
The instructions 乌鸦传媒渟uggest that (the expert) was instructed to assume that there has been negligence and medical malpractice,乌鸦传媒� Kelleher found.
乌鸦传媒淎s such, any conclusion reached by an expert based on these instructions is, as the defendants argue, a self-fulfilling prophecy.乌鸦传媒�
Kelleher described the defendants乌鸦传媒� evidence as 乌鸦传媒渦nshaken in cross-examination.乌鸦传媒�
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, 乌鸦传媒渋t does not constitute tortious conduct on the part of the defendants.乌鸦传媒�
