Civil liability: characterization of the demand for lawsuits against dentists

Abstract In light of the fact that dentists may be held civilly liable for their practice, it is important to understand the current situation of lawsuits filed against these professionals by studying current legal decisions and the literature. The objective of this study was to analyze the case law of the Court of Justice of São Paulo, Brazil, relative to the profile of patients and professionals, the most commonly involved specialties, the amounts litigated and the court decisions pertaining to civil liability lawsuits against dentists. In an inductive approach, a single researcher screened and collected civil liability rulings by accessing the Court's website, and following a statistical-descriptive procedure and an indirect observation technique. The most frequently involved specialty was prosthodontics. However, oral and maxillofacial surgery was related to a higher incidence of damages awarded to settle claims and to higher damage amounts. The dentist was found guilty in 44.32% of the cases researched. Pecuniary damages ranged between R$ 485.50 and R$ 12,530.00, and non-pecuniary damages ranged between R$ 2,500.00 and R$ 70,000.00. Most lawsuits were filed by women against male dentists. An increase in the relative number of lawsuits against companies versus individuals was observed.

Levantamento jurisprudencial: provas em processo de responsabilidade civil odontológica / Jurisprudential study: evidences in dental civil liability lawsuit

Introdução: Nas ações de responsabilidade civil, o juiz ou o Tribunal não está adstrito ao laudo pericial para formar sua convicção, mas deve expor os motivos de sua decisão com base no conjunto probatório. Este estudo visa analisar as principais provas utilizadas em ações de responsabilidade civil em face do Cirurgião-Dentista para fundamentação da sentença. Metodologia: Foram analisadas as decisões do Tribunal de Justiça do Estado de São Paulo em um período de doze meses. 95 processos foram selecionados para estudo. Para a coleta de dados, foram lidos todos os julgados integralmente, tendo-se como parâmetros os tipos de prova utilizados no caso, as motivações da sentença e as decisões do Tribunal. Resultados: A principal motivação para a decisão do Tribunal baseou-se na conclusão do laudo pericial e as demais se referiram ao prontuário odontológico. Em 80 casos houve perícia. Destes, em 62 a decisão do Tribunal estava de acordo com a conclusão do laudo pericial, 15 laudos foram inconclusivos, e em três, o laudo não foi a principal prova utilizada no acórdão, tendo sido utilizado o prontuário odontológico. Dos casos em que houve apresentação de prontuário, 71% foram julgados a favor do profissional. No que tange à decisão do Tribunal, em 41 casos (n=43%) foi concluído pela má-prática profissional. Conclusão: A perícia técnica foi significativa para a comprovação da correta técnica do procedimento profissional, tendo sido o principal meio de prova para a decisão do Tribunal. A manutenção de um prontuário odontológico adequado é importante para fazer prova no processo.

Background: In civil liability lawsuits, the Court is not obliged to follow the expert report to form its conviction, but it must present its motives for decision based on the evidences. This study aims to analyze the main evidence used in civil liability lawsuits related to the dental surgeon as a basis for sentencing. Methods: The decisions of the Court of Justice of the State of São Paulo were analyzed over a period of twelve months (between 2013 and 2014). Ninety-five lawsuits were selected, and all the decisions were read in their entirety, using the types of evidence used in the case, the motivations for the sentence and the Court’s decision as parameters. Results: The main motivation for the Court’s decision was based on the conclusion of the expert report and the others referred to the dental records. Experts were used in 80 cases. In the most of cases, Court decided in agreement with the conclusion of the expert report (95.38%), and in three, this report was not the main evidence used in the decision, with the dental records being used for such. Of those cases in which the records were presented, 71% were decided in favor of the professional, whose main motivation was treatment abandonment. Dental malpractice was determined in 41 cases (43%). Conclusion: The expert report was the principal means of evidence for the Court’s decision. Maintaining appropriate dental records is important for establishing evidence in the lawsuit.