Dentist's Practical Joke Leads Him to Court
Lawyer Blogs
For the purposes of a practical joke, an oral surgeon exploited the vulnerability of a patient under general anesthesia and had to pay her $250,000 as settlement. Then, he sued the insurance company that refused to defend his egregious behavior. As a result of the high court's ruling Thursday, he now gets back the $250,000, plus another $750,000 for damages and attorney fees. The jokester wins.
The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of Robert Woo, who had sued Fireman's Fund Insurance Co. The company refused to defend Woo under his policy because it said the not-very-funny practical joke Woo played on his patient did not qualify as "dental services."
Woo's surgical assistant had asked him to replace two of her teeth with implants. Woo, who often teased the assistant about her pot-bellied pig, had the implants made — as well as two extras in the shape of boar tusks. While the assistant was sedated, Woo removed her oxygen mask, put the tusks in her mouth and took pictures, some with her eyes pried open.
The employee was so unnerved when she saw the photos, she did not return to work and sued.
The most stunning aspect of the decision was the majority's opinion: "We conclude that Fireman's had a duty to defend under Woo's professional liability provision because the insertion of boar tusk flippers in [the patient's] mouth conceivably fell within the policy's broad definition of the practice of dentistry."
The general practice of dentistry includes humiliating vulnerable patients?
Thank Justices Mary Fairhurst, Richard Sanders, Bobbe Bridge, Tom Chambers and Susan Owens for that wisdom. They overturned a state Appeals Court ruling that sided with Fireman's.
Related listings
-
Embattled Gonzales talks crime-fighting in Indy
Lawyer Blogs 07/27/2007[##_1L|1203445004.jpg|width="140" height="112" alt=""|_##]Embattled Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is in Indianapolis Friday addressing law enforcement assigned to sex crimes. Gonzales' appearance comes one day after Senate Democrats called for a ...
-
Minister tells court marijuana is a sacrament
Lawyer Blogs 07/26/2007[##_1L|1108823798.jpg|width="120" height="88" alt=""|_##]The mail-order minister of a Hollywood church that burns marijuana during services and allegedly sells it to members says that’s protected under federal law because the drug is a religious sacr...
-
CA Man Charged With Obscenity Violations
Lawyer Blogs 07/25/2007A California man has been charged by a federal grand jury in Los Angeles with operating an Internet-based obscenity distribution business and related offenses, Assistant Attorney General Alice S. Fisher of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division a...
Grounds for Divorce in Ohio - Sylkatis Law, LLC
A divorce in Ohio is filed when there is typically “fault” by one of the parties and party not at “fault” seeks to end the marriage. A court in Ohio may grant a divorce for the following reasons:
• Willful absence of the adverse party for one year
• Adultery
• Extreme cruelty
• Fraudulent contract
• Any gross neglect of duty
• Habitual drunkenness
• Imprisonment in a correctional institution at the time of filing the complaint
• Procurement of a divorce outside this state by the other party
Additionally, there are two “no-fault” basis for which a court may grant a divorce:
• When the parties have, without interruption for one year, lived separate and apart without cohabitation
• Incompatibility, unless denied by either party
However, whether or not the the court grants the divorce for “fault” or not, in Ohio the party not at “fault” will not get a bigger slice of the marital property.