The standard of care in dentistry: Where did

it come from? How has it evolved?

JOSEPH P. GRASKEMPER
J Am Dent Assoc 2004;135;1449-1455

The following resources related to this article are available online at

jada.ada.org ( this information is current as of March 20, 2011 ):

Updated information and services including high-resolution figures, can be

found in the online version of this article at:
http://jada.ada.org/cgi/content/full/135/10/1449

Downloaded from jada.ada.org on March 20, 2011

Information about obtaining reprints of this article or about permission to
reproduce this article in whole or in part can be found at:
http://www.ada.org/prof/resources/pubs/jada/permissions.asp

© 2011 American Dental Association. The sponsor and its products are not endorsed by the ADA.
 P R A C T I C E M A N A G E M E N T
The standard of care
in dentistry
Where did it come from?
How has it evolved?
JOSEPH P. GRASKEMPER, D.D.S., J.D.
he standard of care and its relationship to
T risk management is one of the most discussed
and least understood topics among dentists.
Everyone thinks they are treating their
patients within the standard of care, because
they are either doing it the way they were taught in
dental school, doing it the best they can, or doing it the
way everyone else is doing it.
With all the new techniques and materials, as well as
the dental gurus’ proclamations that
their way is the best, it is time to revisit
The standard the honorable, time-tested doctrine of
of care the standard of care. Every time I read
continually a dental publication, I perceive confu-
evolves with sion regarding the standard of care as it
the advent of relates to the community-based general
dentist. Of course, we all try to keep
new materials,
abreast of the changes in dentistry to
new improve our patient care. By doing so,
procedures and we think we will be within the standard
new court of care, and will not have to worry much
rulings. about it when we treat patients. We
believe we are up to date in regard to
the latest and greatest methods and
materials. However, many of my students, residents and
colleagues still ask me, “What exactly is the standard of
care?”
Some have attempted to define it as follows:
dwhat the normal, average dentist does;
dwhat the dentist was taught in dental school;
dwhat is taught in dental schools now;
dthe best he or she can do under the circumstances;
dwhat the majority of dentists are doing in their
practices;
dwhat the specialist would do under the same
Copyright ©2004 American Dental Association. All rights reserved.
ABSTRACT
Background. The author explores the
topic of the standard of care. He reviews the
initial application of the standard to health
care professionals, as well as its evolution
from an 1898 legal case in which 10 ele-
ments of the standard of care were stated.
Conclusions. The standard of care con-
tinually evolves with the advent of new
materials, new procedures and new court
rulings. Before applying the standard of
care, dentists should consider new available
treatments, as well as their state’s current
interpretation of the standard of care.
Practice Implications. The standard
of care should be applied to all dentists
when patients claim alleged malpractice. It
Downloaded from jada.ada.org on March 20, 2011
should be tempered by changes in the prac-
tice of dentistry, which dentists should be
aware of.
circumstances.
However, these definitions do not
define the standard of care completely.
The definition of the standard of care
has not changed. Dental practitioners
and how they practice have changed,
however, and, as a result, the level of
care that dentists provide to patients
also has changed. The manner in which
the standard of care is applied has
evolved with the development of new
materials and new treatment modali-
ties. It is made malleable by practi-
tioners who perform successful new
techniques, as well as by the treatment
failures that find their way into the
trial courts. So what is the standard of
care?
The standard of care actually is
found in the definition of negligence,
which is said to have four elements, all
of which must be met to allow negli-
gence to be found in a malpractice law-
suit. Those four elements are as follows:
dthat a duty of care was owed by the
dentist to the patient;
dthat the dentist violated the appli-
cable standard of care;
dthat the plaintiff suffered a compens-
able injury;
JADA, Vol. 135, October 2004 1449
P R A C T I C E M A N A G E M E N T

dthat such injury was caused in fact and proxi-
mately caused by the substandard conduct.1(p9)
The plaintiff must show all four elements to
fulfill his or her burden to prove negligence. The
second element carries with it the concept of
standard of care. The plaintiff must show that the
standard of care has not been met in a cause of
action against a dentist for negligence. It is
whether the dentist provided treatment above or
below the standard of care that usually is the
biggest stumbling block for the plaintiff in his or
her pursuit of a malpractice case.
The definition of the standard of care was best
stated in Blair v. Eblen2: “[A dentist
is] under a duty to use that degree
of care and skill which is expected The plaintiff must
provide the best treatment he or she could—even
with the utmost of good faith—if that treatment
was below a minimum standard. In 1898, the case
of Pike v. Honsinger4 clearly stated the elements
of the standard of care, which I have summarized
as follows:
dpossess a “reasonable degree of learning and
skill that is ordinarily possessed by physicians
[dentists] and surgeons in the locality where he
[or she] practices”;
d“use reasonable care and diligence in the exer-
cise of his [or her] skill and the application of his
[or her] learning”;
d“use his [or her] best judgment in
exercising skill and applying his [or
her] knowledge”;

Downloaded from jada.ada.org on March 20, 2011

of a reasonably competent [dentist] show that the d“in relation to learning and skill
acting in the same or similar standard of care [it] does not require the surgeon
circumstances.” [dentist] to possess that extraordi-
has not been met in
I should point out that each state nary learning and skill which
may have a somewhat different a cause of action belong only to a few men of rare
interpretation of the definition of against a dentist for endowments, but such as possessed
the standard of care. Moreover, the negligence. by the average member of the med-
standard of care may vary some- ical [dental] profession and [in]
what depending on the facts of local good standing”;
cases (see the sidebar on page 1454 d“he [or she] is bound to keep
for more information). Dentists should consult abreast of the times”;
with an attorney for applicable state law. duse “approved methods in general use”;
d“does not require the exercise of the highest
ORIGINS OF THE STANDARD OF CARE possible degree of care [to be liable], but there
Where did the concept of “standard of care” come must be a want of ordinary and reasonable care,
from? The first mention, to my knowledge, of a leading to a bad result”;
“reasonable man of ordinary prudence” was made d“give proper instructions to his [or her] patient
in the case of Vaughan v. Menlove in 1837.3 The in relation to conduct, exercise and use of an
theory then gravitated to the health care profes- injured limb [jaw or tooth]”;
sions. When applied to dentistry, the objective cri- dThe physician [dentist] does not “guaranty [sic]
teria judging the conduct of the defendant (den- a good result but he [or she] promises by implica-
tist) needed to be changed from “a reasonable tion to use the skill and learning of the average
man of ordinary prudence” to a higher level for physician [dentist] to exercise reasonable care
two reasons. First, as members of a learned pro- and to exert his [or her] best judgment in the
fession, dentists are expected to possess and exer- effort to bring about a good result”;
cise skill and knowledge beyond that of average dThe physician [dentist] is not liable for a “mere
people. Second, in regard to matters involving error of judgment, provided he [or she] does what
professional skill and knowledge, the conduct of a he [or she] thinks best after careful examination.”
dentist should be evaluated in terms of profes- Each of these elements has developed and
sional dental standards determined by the dental evolved to its current general understanding.
profession; hence, the need for expert witnesses.
In the late 1800s, professionals and others who THE LOCALITY RULE
undertook any work that called for special skill The locality rule—or community standard—states
needed not only to exercise reasonable care in that the dentist will be held to the same level of
their work, but also to possess a minimum treatment that other dentists are providing in
standard of special knowledge and ability. Thus, their local communities.5(p72) This rule is slowly
it might not have been sufficient for the dentist to becoming watered down or replaced with the “rea-

1450 JADA, Vol. 135, October 2004

Copyright ©2004 American Dental Association. All rights reserved.
 P R A C T I C E M A N A G E M E N T

sonably prudent standard.”5(p71)
With the increased availability of professional
information through continuing education pro-
grams, which many states now require, and the
relative ease of keeping up to date with technical
advancements through journals and the Internet,
the local community rule has been found to be too
narrow in scope.6(p164) However, it still may be used
in remote areas where the dentist does not have
the level of accessibility to specialists or to
advancements in dentistry that most dentists
have, or it may take longer for those advance-
ments to become commonplace in the remote area.
Another reason we have moved away from the
locality rule is because of concerns
that have arisen regarding the reluc-
This 1974 case clearly stated that the stand-
ards for a procedure or treatment, as set forth by
a profession, may be found to be unreasonable if
the procedure or treatment is basically pain-free,
easy, inexpensive, takes little time and was not
performed.7 When a procedure might have
avoided the devastating result of disease or
injury, a reasonable and diligent professional
should have used it. This is true regardless of
whether it is or is not a standard procedure or
treatment within the professional community.
The use of a periodontal probe is a good
example. Using a periodontal probe routinely
during examinations is a painless, quick, easy
and inexpensive method of checking
for periodontal disease. More likely

Downloaded from jada.ada.org on March 20, 2011

tance of doctors to testify against The reasonably than not, the probe will detect early
one another, especially if they know prudent standard signs of periodontal disease, which
the defendant and live or work in allows for early treatment and pos-
states that the dentist
the same community. This poses the sible prevention of tooth loss. Even
possibility of insulating and perpetu- will be held to the if all dentists in the community do
ating pockets of substandard prac- level of care that a not use a periodontal probe in all
tice because of the limited avail- reasonably prudent examinations, a dentist’s nonuse of
ability of local expert witnesses, practitioner would the probe probably would be consid-
which would be unfair to claimants. have provided under ered below the standard of care.
It also creates a possible conflict of This concept was stated again in
a certain set of
interest for an expert witness when Vassos v. Raussalis8: “The skill,
he or she knows the defendant. For circumstances. diligence, knowledge, means and
the most part, the dentist from New methods are not those ‘ordinarily’
York, the dentist from Kansas and or ‘generally’ or ‘customarily’ exer-
the dentist from Washington all have equal access cised or applied, but are those that are ‘reason-
to recent advancements in dentistry. Hence, the ably’ exercised or applied. Negligence cannot be
locality rule has evolved into a wider scope termed excused on the grounds that others practice the
the “reasonably prudent standard.” same kind of negligence.”
REASONABLE CARE AND DILIGENCE THE EXPERT WITNESS
The reasonably prudent standard states that the Because of the technical aspect of dentistry, the
dentist will be held to the level of care that a rea- judge and jury need to rely on an expert to
sonably prudent practitioner would have provided explain what is expected of a “reasonably pru-
under a certain set of circumstances.5(p71) What is dent” dentist. It is the expert’s duty to review and
reasonably prudent? A 1974 case found that the explain what the treatment in question would
nonuse of a simple procedure (a glaucoma test), have been had a “reasonably prudent dentist”
although not typically used in that community for performed the treatment. What the expert wit-
patients younger than 40 years, was below the ness actually does in his or her office is not rel-
standard of care.7 evant, although many times what he or she does
This decision was based on the conclusion that may be the same. He or she is to make the ques-
if a simple procedure could show early signs of tioned treatment comprehensible to the judge and
disease, and thereby allow an early, more suc- jury. For a dentist to qualify as an expert, the
cessful treatment or even prevention of disease, it courts look to his or her skill, training and
should have been used. Thus, the nonuse of such experience.
a procedure—because its use is not standard In Fitzgerald v. Flynn,9 the court stated, “It is
within the professional community—is not a the scope of the expert witness’ knowledge and
reason to limit liability. not the artificial classification by title that should

JADA, Vol. 135, October 2004 1451

Copyright ©2004 American Dental Association. All rights reserved.
P R A C T I C E M A N A G E M E N T

govern the threshold of admissibility.” In other THE BEST JUDGMENT RULE

words, just because someone considers himself or
herself a dental specialist does not make that
person an expert witness. The relevant criteria
are the individual’s knowledge of and familiarity
with the procedure in question.
Therefore, a general dentist with knowledge of
and familiarity with a procedure may be found
competent to testify as an expert witness against
a specialist. For example, if a specialist fails to
secure informed consent from a patient before
providing treatment, a general dentist with expe-
rience in such treatment may be found to be an
expert witness for or against the specialist. So
does that create one standard for
both or two standards? Is the
The best judgment rule, instituted in 1968, added
the concept that the dentist must use his or her
best judgment when the prevailing practice is
unreasonably dangerous for a particular
patient.1(p72) An example of the best judgment rule
is the use of cantilever bridges when a removable
partial denture would be the more conventional
treatment of choice. Although cantilever bridges
are acceptable in limited circumstances, they
have been found to be unreasonably dangerous
when used improperly.
Another example is that of patching a hole in a
crown or filling in a void at the
margin of a crown rather than

Downloaded from jada.ada.org on March 20, 2011

standard for the specialist different The best judgment
from that for the general dentist?
rule requires the
To date, no distinction has been
made between an ordinary skilled dentist to use his or
general dentist and a specialist of her best judgment
superior skill. According to when the prevailing
Prosser,6(p163) the courts have held practice is
that the standard may be modified unreasonably
if the practitioner holds himself or
dangerous for a
herself out as having greater skill
and knowledge than does the gen- particular patient.
eral practitioner. In that case, such
a practitioner probably will be held
to a higher standard.10,11
However, consider the case of a patient who,
despite receiving a referral, opts not to see a spe-
cialist, but wants the general dentist to perform a
procedure for whatever reason (for example, dis-
tance or cost). If the general dentist performs the
procedure and it ends in a bad result, he or she
might be held to a standard that is lower than
that for a specialist (depending on state law and
the specifics of the case), but not below a min-
imum level that the patient is entitled to receive
(that is, the level a reasonably prudent dentist
would provide in the same or a similar situation).
In Cummins v. Donley,12 the court held that if
the defendant (a dentist) represents himself (or
herself) as having greater skill (or less skill) than
the minimum common skill of a reasonably pru-
dent defendant (a dentist), and the patient
accepts treatment with that understanding, the
standard of care will be modified. The duty still
remains for the dentist to be reasonably prudent
and inform the patient of the opportunity to be
referred for treatment to another practitioner of
greater skill.
replacing the crown. If there is no
added appreciable risk to the
patient by treating him or her with
a cantilever bridge or by patching
the crown, then the dentist prob-
ably will not be held liable if the
treatment is unsuccessful, because
he or she used his or her best judg-
ment. This rule coincides with the
“Last Clear Chance Doctrine,”13
which states that if the dentist
knew or should have known that
the information from, or treatment
by, a patient’s previous health care provider (spe-
cialist or not) is incorrect and he or she still pro-
ceeds with the treatment on the basis of the
incorrect information, which results in damage to
the patient, the dentist probably will be held
liable.
A good example is when a patient’s physician
states to the dentist or patient that premedica-
tion is not needed for a heart murmur, but the
treating dentist knew or should have known that
premedication was needed. The dentist cannot
hide behind the physician’s wrong information or
course of action, because he or she had the last
clear chance to prevent harm to the patient.
WHAT IS AVERAGE?
The term “average” in this context loosely means
that one-half of the dentists are practicing below
the standard of care and one-half are practicing
above it. This, however, is not the case, because
more than one-half of all dentists practice within
the standard of care. In the place of “average,”
“reasonably competent” has been slowly accepted
by the courts.14

1452 JADA, Vol. 135, October 2004

Copyright ©2004 American Dental Association. All rights reserved.
 P R A C T I C E M A N A G E M E N T

The Restatement of Torts stated the following:
“The fallacy in the ‘average’ formulation has been
explained as follows: [The standard of care] is not
that of the most highly skilled, nor is it that of the
average members of the profession … since those
who have less than ... average skill may still be
competent and qualified. Half of the physicians
[dentists] of America do not automatically become
negligent in practicing medicine [dentistry] …
merely because their skill is less than the profes-
sional average. … [The standard] is that which is
common to those who are recognized in the pro-
fession … itself as qualified, and competent to
engage in it” (Restatement of Torts, 299A, com-
ment e).1(p75) (The Restatement of Torts is a series
of volumes written by the Ameri-
being an implant candidate and refer him or her
to the proper dentist if the patient opts to
receive implants.
APPROVED METHODS
With the advent of adhesive restorative
materials, implants and other advances in den-
tistry during what I refer to as the current “plat-
inum age” of dentistry, dentists face many choices
with regard to materials, techniques and pro-
cedures. By selecting a less popular method or
material, a dentist probably will not be held liable
if there is a “respectable minority” using the same
method or material. The respectable minority
rule holds that “a physician [dentist] does not
incur liability merely by electing to

Downloaded from jada.ada.org on March 20, 2011

can Law Institute that explain the pursue one of several recognized
law in a general area, how it is When adopting new courses of treatment.15 However,
changing and what direction the techniques, dentists what constitutes an acceptable level
authors think this change should must be reasonably of support for a particular technique
take.) Hence, having a license to has yet to be determined.
prudent and
practice dentistry makes one quali- I believe that practitioners
fied and competent to practice competent in should follow a dual approach to
within the standard of care. their use. help guide them in following this
A more practical way of looking rule. On the one hand, if progress is
at this element of “average” or to be made, standards should be
“reasonably competent” in regard broad enough to allow innovation
to the standard of care is to think of an egg that is and advancement in treatment modalities. On
divided into fourths. The top three-fourths more the other hand, patients should be protected from
likely than not fall within the standard of care. ill-considered and untested procedures. The
There is no line above which one practices within courts should consider the following factors when
the standard of care or below which one does not determining whether the respectable minority
practice within the standard of care. rule should be applied on a wider basis: the
availability, effectiveness and safety of more tra-
KEEPING ABREAST OF PROFESSIONAL ditional treatments; the patient’s having given
DEVELOPMENTS
the dentist fully informed, written consent for
Keeping up with current developments in den- the procedure; and consideration of the technical
tistry is partially the reason why most states support and research available for the treatment
now require that dentists earn continuing educa- in question.1(p67) Also, the dentist should be prop-
tion credits. However, this does not mean that erly trained in the new procedures and be rea-
dentists must perform every new technique (or sonably competent in their use.
that which is being promoted by the latest self-
professed dental guru). However, when adopting ORDINARY AND REASONABLE CARE
new techniques, dentists must be reasonably The standard of care does not require that the
prudent and competent in their use. Being dentist provide the highest possible level of care,
aware of any advancements in the field and although dentists should strive continually to
informing patients of these advancements (even improve patient care. Dentists must only provide
if the dentist chooses not to perform them him- ordinary and reasonable care in a prudent and
self or herself) should be considered to be competent manner to be practicing within the
“keeping abreast of the times.” For instance, standard of care. They may not perform below
although a dentist may not perform implant pro- the minimum level of care that patients are enti-
cedures—a newer procedure for some—he or she tled to. As mentioned above, if a dentist holds
should inform a patient of the possibility of himself or herself out as providing a higher-than-

JADA, Vol. 135, October 2004 1453

Copyright ©2004 American Dental Association. All rights reserved.
P R A C T I C E M A N A G E M E N T

Consult with counsel regarding

standard of care
he ADA’s Division of Legal Affairs wishes to emphasize the importance of consulting

T with local counsel regarding standard of care, given that state law can vary, and a dif-
ferent standard can apply even within a given state based on the facts of a particular
case. As further background on this topic, the Division is pleased to share the fol-
lowing excerpt from our new publication, “Frequently Asked Legal Questions: A
Guide for Dentists and the Dental Team,” which answers more than 150 questions that member-
dentists have asked us frequently during the past decade:

Question 150. Did I Commit Malpractice? What Is the Standard of Care?

Downloaded from jada.ada.org on March 20, 2011

Let’s first describe what is meant by the phrase “standard of care.” The typical malpractice
case alleges that the dentist, through acts or omissions, failed to provide appropriate quality
care, or take reasonable precautions when doing so, thereby causing harm to the patient, usually
during dental treatment. Implicit in this formulation is a failure to treat in accordance with the
standard of care.
Since a malpractice case goes to the heart of the question of whether a defendant-dentist fol-
lowed the standard of care, it is perfectly reasonable for a dentist to want to know what the
standard is. Unfortunately, there is no simple, one-size-fits-all answer. This all becomes fact spe-
cific, dependent on the procedures involved, the norm in the community, etc. In fact, in a lawsuit
each side has the opportunity to present expert testimony regarding what it believes the
standard of care to be. It is then up to the judge or jury hearing the facts of the case to decide
what the standard is, and whether it has been violated.
Worthy of note is that while ADA positions and recommendations may be cited as evidence of
the standard of care, the ADA does not actually set the standard. Indeed, ADA’s patient care
information, including our dental parameters, are always clear that treatment recommendations
are always and ultimately left to the professional judgment of the dentist.
“Frequently Asked Legal Questions” can be ordered through the ADA Catalog by calling
1-800-947-4746 or visiting “www.adacatalog.org”. The publication also includes a variety of
sample contracts and checklists that dentists can tailor to fit their specific practice and state law
requirements. ■
—ADA Division of Legal Affairs

ordinary level of care, he or she may be held to a DO NOT OFFER GUARANTEES

higher level of standard of care.
PROPER INSTRUCTIONS
The standard of care extends to the information
that dentists give patients regarding how they
need to care for themselves after treatment. Den-
tists must provide postoperative instructions
because patient care continues after they leave
the dental office. Without proper instructions,
patients may be harmed.
Simply because a dentist tells a patient that he or
she can save a tooth with endodontic therapy or
periodontal surgery, it is not a guarantee that the
tooth will be saved. Thus, clinicians must be
careful in what they say. I use the term “setup” to
refer to many of the statements I hear dentists
make. Statements such as “I can save that tooth,”
“your smile will be perfect when I’m done” and
“this will be an easy extraction” are no-win situa-

1454 JADA, Vol. 135, October 2004

Copyright ©2004 American Dental Association. All rights reserved.

tions for dentists. Building up the patient’s expec-
tations beyond those that the dentist is capable of
providing or building up expectations to an
unattainable degree can set up the practitioner to
become a defendant in a lawsuit. However, when
dentists reassure patients about planned pro-
cedures, there is an implication that the dentist
will act competently and prudently to bring about
a good result through ordinary and reasonable
care.
ERRORS OF JUDGMENT
If the treatment ends in a bad The standard
result, that alone will not be a suc- is the manner in
cessful cause of action because of which a dentist
the “error in judgment“ must practice.
1(p69)
doctrine. This doctrine has three
related malpractice concepts. First,
it supports the basic requirement
that before a dentist can be held liable, the
patient-plaintiff must prove that the dentist’s
conduct was negligent. Second, it re-emphasizes
that without evidence of the dentist’s negligence,
he or she will not be held liable merely because of
an unfavorable result from the therapy. Third, it
reaffirms the respectable minority rule, which
protects the dentist’s right to choose among rea-
sonably acceptable therapeutic approaches, even
though, in retrospect, the choice may have turned
out to be less beneficial than other options.
The error in judgment doctrine is not a solely
determining or ruling doctrine that decides the
fate of a malpractice case. In Fall v. White,16 the
court concluded that “a doctor will not be negli-
gent if he exercises such reasonable care and ordi-
nary skill even though he mistakes a diagnosis,
makes an error in judgment or fails to appreciate
the seriousness of the patient’s problem. There
cannot be a total disregard for the patient’s
problem.” Minimum requirements of skill and
knowledge must be met regarding the diagnosis
and treatment of the patient. The dentist must
proceed as a reasonably prudent and competent
practitioner, providing, at the very least, ordinary
and reasonable care.
CONCLUSION
The standard of care has evolved and will con-
tinue to evolve by way of various rulings of trial
Copyright ©2004 American Dental Association. All rights reserved.
P R A C T I C E M A N A G E M E N T
and appellate courts, advances
in dental research, better con-
tinuing education programs and
the normal progression of the
daily practice of dentistry. The
standard of care is not a line
that dentists fall above or below. Dr. Graskemper is in
private dental practice
It is the manner in which a den- in Bellport, N.Y., and is
tist must practice. A bad result an assistant clinical
professor, State Univer-
is not necessarily outside the sity of New York at
standard of care, Stony Brook, School of
Dental Medicine.
if the dentist has Address reprint
of care provided the min- requests to Dr.
Graskemper, 7 Bellport
imum level of care Lane, Bellport, N.Y.
that the patient is 11713, e-mail
“jpgraskemperddsjd@
entitled to receive. attg.net”.
Downloaded from jada.ada.org on March 20, 2011
This includes
proper referral to another dentist or
a physician when the level of care
that the patient is entitled to is beyond the den-
tist’s capability.
If dentists provide ordinary and reasonable care
in a prudent and competent manner, they will find
themselves performing within the standard of care
and will receive much satisfaction from dentistry
and caring for their patients. ■
The author points out that the concepts and principles presented in
this article may vary from state to state. Readers should consult with
their attorneys for legal advice.
1. King JH. The law of medical malpractice in a nutshell. 2nd ed. St.
Paul, Minn.: West Publishing; 1986.
2. Blair v. Eblen, 461 S.W. 2d 370, 373 (Ky 1970).
3. Vaughan v. Menlove, 3 Bing, NC 467, 132 Eng.Rep. (1837).
4. Pike v. Honsinger, 155 N.Y. 201; 49 N.E. 760 (1898).
5. Pollack BR. Law and risk management in dental practice. Carol
Stream, Ill.: Quintessence; 2002.
6. Prosser W. Handbook of the law of torts. St. Paul, Minn.: West
Publishing; 1971.
7. Helling v. Carey, 83 Wash. 2d, 514, 519 P.2d 981 (1974).
8. Vassos v. Raussalis, 658 P.2d 1234, 1289 (Wyo. 1983).
9. Fitzgerald v. Flynn, 167 Conn. 609, 618, 356 A.2d 887, 892 (1975).
10. Carbone v. Warburton, 11 NJ 418, 94 A.2d 680 (1953).
11. Josselyn v. Dearborn, 143 Me. 328, 62 A.2d 174 (1948).
12. Cummins v. Donley, 173 Kan 463, 249 P.2d 695 (1952).
13. Graskemper JP. A new perspective on dental malpractice: prac-
tice enhancement through risk management. JADA 2002;133:753.
14. Shilkret v. Annapolis Emergency Hosp. Association, 276 Md.187,
349 A.2d 245 (1975).
15. Downer v. Vielleux, 322 A.2d 82, 87 (Me. 1974).
16. Fall v. White, 449 N.E. 2d, 628, 635 (Ind. App. 1983).
JADA, Vol. 135, October 2004 1455