Brett Clayton

An endodontic file separated in the patient’s root during a root canal. Plaintiff claimed that he was not told about the retained file and was not provided with options for treatment.

Plaintiff filed a dental malpractice action on behalf of her daughter. A bench trial was conducted, which resulted in judgment for the defense. Plaintiff appealed as a matter of right, and the appeal was dismissed with prejudice due to the Plaintiff’s flagrant non-compliance with appellate rules and procedure.

Defended mental health practice againstclaims of breached confidentiality.

A quarry owner and asphalt producer directed our blasting contractor client to conduct blasting within 20-25 feet of its asphalt plant, with knowledge that the blasting activity conducted there would present a risk to the plant. When the plant was damaged from blasting activities, it sued our client, claiming that the contractor should be strictly liable. We argued that strict liability should not apply to these circumstances, because the stated rationale for applying strict liability is to blasting cases is to protect innocent third parties who do not benefit from the blasting activities, which does not apply to these facts. The trial court agreed and the Court of Appeals upheld the decision.

Argued a first impression case in front of the Indiana Court of Appeals to uphold the trial court’s determination that strict liability does not apply to our client’s blasting activities, where blasting was conducted in a quarry at the direction of the quarry owner.

This matter involves a dental malpractice claim against a periodontist, in which the Plaintiff alleges that she experienced symptoms that included sleeplessness, nerve pain, mental confusion, dizziness, etc. as a result of the periodontist’s decision to prescribe Levaquin as a prophylactic antibiotic prior to the Plaintiff’s dental implant procedure. Plaintiff alleged that the Periodontist breached the standard of care by prescribing Levaquin, by failing to provide Plaintiff with informed consent as to the risks of this antibiotic, and by delaying in issuing a stop-use instruction to Plaintiff.  Following a unanimous Medical Review Panel opinion in favor of the Periodontist, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit. We then filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, which the trial court granted on the basis that the expert witnesses designated by Plaintiff, which consisted of two physicians and a dentist, were not qualified to opine on the standard of care as required under Indiana law. Furthermore, the fact that Plaintiff admittedly read all risks regarding the antibiotic before she took the medication only further negated the informed consent claim. The Court of Appeals affirmed.

Summary judgment affirmed in favor of our periodontist client in dental malpractice claim.