Day on Torts
Where there was a question of fact regarding when the plaintiff should have discovered her injury in a health care liability case, as the pain she experienced was a potential side effect of her dental procedures, summary judgment for the defendant dentist was reversed.
In Price v. The Center for Family and Implant Dentistry, PLLC, No. E2023-01100-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 8, 2024), plaintiff filed an HCLA claim against defendant dentist after being told by another dentist that dentures could not be made to fit the implants installed by defendant. Plaintiff began her treatment with defendant in April 2019, which involved extracting all her teeth and installing implants in preparation for dentures. After procedures in June, August and October 2019, plaintiff experienced pain, but she was told these were normal side effects. Plaintiff also noticed that her temporary dentures would slip out of her mouth. According to plaintiff, she received wax rims on December 9, 2019, but adjustments needed to be made. Plaintiff returned in February 2020 to try the new set of teeth. According to plaintiff, defendant was rude at the appointment, so plaintiff met with a different dentist thereafter. That dentist, as well as another dentist, informed her that teeth could not be made that would fit the existing implants.
Plaintiff gave pre-suit notice under the HCLA on December 8, 2020, then subsequently filed this malpractice action. Defendant moved for summary judgment based on the statute of limitations, arguing that plaintiff experienced pain, bleeding and other symptoms after her June 2019 procedure; that she experienced complications after her October 2019 procedure; and that her temporary dentures did not fit in 2019. Based on these facts, defendant argued that plaintiff should have discovered her injury well before December 9, 2019, making her suit untimely. The trial court agreed and granted defendant summary judgment, but the Court of Appeals reversed.
In HCLA cases, the cause of action accrues when plaintiff becomes “aware of facts sufficient to put a reasonable person on notice that he or she has suffered an injury as a result of the defendants’ wrongful conduct.” (internal citation omitted). Here, summary judgment based on the statute of limitations was only appropriate “if the facts in the record and all reasonable inferences demonstrate that [plaintiff’s] cause of action accrued on or prior to December 8, 2019 (one year prior to her pre-suit notice being sent).”
While defendant emphasized the complications plaintiff experienced throughout her treatment in 2019, plaintiff testified that those complications were listed as possible side effects on her informed consent paperwork, and that defendant assured her that her experience was normal. Plaintiff argued that it was not until February 2020 when she noticed problems with the permanent teeth she was given that she could have realized there was a problem.
The Court noted that there was “conflicting evidence as to when the dentures presented to [plaintiff] were sufficiently final to put her on notice of a potential problem with the implants.” The Court further explained that “[u]ntil [plaintiff] was aware of facts suggesting that [defendant] had acted wrongfully in his performance of the dental implant procedures, she did not have constructive notice of an injury for purposes of the discovery rule.” Based on the evidence presented, the Court found that there was a question of fact as to when the claim accrued. The Court wrote that plaintiff “could experience the discomfort associated with dental treatment from the beginning and not have reason to think [defendant] had acted wrongfully until she saw how the final or near-final product looked and then learned from other dentists that the implants were improperly placed.” Because of these genuine issues of material fact, summary judgment was reversed.
The Court of Appeals was correct to overturn summary judgment here, as plaintiff presented enough evidence to create an issue of fact as to when she reasonably could have known that she was injured. Her experience with known side effects associated with the dental procedures did not necessarily put her on notice that the implants were not properly placed.
This opinion was released five months after oral arguments in this case.