Bronx, NYFollowing the ruling of a New York appellate court, a lawsuit alleging dental malpractice can proceed against Dr. Hadley Bach of New York. Dr. Bach had put forth a motion for summary dismissal of claims made by a former patient following the use of bulk amalgam instead of using encapsulated amalgam for a restorative procedure.
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department, upheld the ruling of a lower court that sufficient factual question had been raised to warrant a trial. The ruling has no bearing on innocence or guilt relating to the matter.
According to the 6/10/10 issue of States News Service, Dr. Hadley Bach is accused by former patient Freya Koss of using bulk amalgam for a restoration that allegedly resulted in mercury poisoning. Koss, an avowed anti-amalgamist based in Pennsylvania, claims that Bach "deviated from accepted standards of care by employing an amalgam that contained mercury, resulting in the patient suffering mercury poisoning, rather than using a pre-mixed, precapsulated amalgam filling."
Three expert witnesses who undertook on Koss' behalf brought forward reports that "sufficiently raise a triable issue of fact as to whether defendant departed from the standards of accepted dental practice, and whether such deviation was a proximate cause of the patient's injuries," the court ruled.
The court considered that the experts "relied on such objective factors as the failure to use pre-mixed dental amalgams, and the high levels of gaseous mercury that the vapor testing found in Plaintiff's mouth."
The American Dental Association (ADA) released the statement, noting that last year the ADA Council on Scientific Affairs reinforced the Association's long-held position that "dental amalgam is considered a safe, affordable and durable material that has been used to restore the teeth of more than 100 million Americans."
It is not known when proceedings will commence with regard to a trial alleging dental malpractice.
If you have suffered losses in this case, please send your complaint to a lawyer who will review your possible [Dental Malpractice Lawsuit] at no cost or obligation.
Posted by Kathleen Prior
What we can do the stop use of the amalgam? Mercury is poison. It is against to poison anybody, Right?
email and I will share my own fight :-)
Posted by Freya Koss
On October 21, 2014, after several delays, this dental malpractice suit was settled in favor of the patient, who sustained neurological injuries due to mercury poisoning as a result of the dentist's deviation from standard of care.
A full article on this settlement:
Landmark Settlement Reached in Dental Mercury
I am a dental patient with numerous mercury fillings that I want to have replaced. They have broken my teeth due to expansion and contraction of the enamel with changes in temperature over time. I am highly offended by the position of the ADA to literally give patients no alternatives to mercury implants. They have caused grievous damage to my teeth. I have the right as a human being to informed consent about what the holier-than-thou dental crowd decides is in my "best" interest as to what they determine to be "safe" levels of mercury toxicity. This amounts to a conspiracy similar to Mafia protection money and extortion. The patients have suffered untold harm by this inquisitorial atmosphere surrounding the dental "profession". The ADA is trying desperately to keep the cover up in place on this issue. Please know that God will judge ultimately.
Posted by Freya Koss
Dear Dr. Rosenblatt,
The injuries sustained by the plaintiff due to Dr. Bach's lack of standard of care in removing and placing an amalgam mercury filling, go far beyond his use of liquid bulk mercury,which in fact was not standard of care in 1998. If you are a member of the ADA, you should be aware of the ADA's 1994 Resolution recommending that dentists no longer use liquid bulk mercury. In fact, they impliciily state that they will not endorse its use any longer. Dr. Bach was taught at NYU to use pre-encapsulated amalgam, which he used in his dental licensing exam.
Unless you know the facts, I suggest that you don't make arbitrary statements which are inaccurate.
As standard of care, I highly recommend that you follow the ADA's Dental Hygiene Recommendations and follow the manufacturer's instructions for amalgam use as well as being aware of the warnings and recommendations on the amalgam MSDS.
In addition, there is no reason for the dental profession to continue to endorse the placement of amalgam silver fillings in teeth. These fillings, as you know, are 50% MERCURY, the second most toxic non-radioactive element on earth besides plutionium . Mercury is POISON...it doesn't belong in the human body. MERCURY is being removed from every product including switches, thermostats, thermometers, vaccines, why would you think it is safe in the teeth?
Do you own homework Dr. Rosenblatt....mercury is not inert in amalgam fillings...even the ADA admits it leaks out in the form of vapor from the fillings. Scientific studies have proven that the mercury from fillings is converted to "methyl mercury" due to the bacteria in the mouth. Methyl mercury is the most virulent form of mercury.
Mercury fillings have been banned in Sweden, Denmark and Norway because it is a POISON and is hazardous to health and the environment.
Patients deserve to know that amalgam fillings aren't silver, they are mercury. Why wouldn't you want to protect yourself,. your staff and your patients from an element that is considered a hazardous waste before or after use.?
THINK ABOUT IT DR. ROSENBLATT....I certainly hope that you are not mercury poisoned!
Posted by Barry Rosenblatt DMD
As a dentist with an undergraduate BS in metallurgical engineering(Brooklyn polytech}, Dr. Bach did not perform malpratice.
LawyersandSettlements.com is an online news and information site for the general public and legal community. As a legal news resource, we have emerged as an independent & trusted voice. We provide detailed and quality information on various lawsuits filed including Drugs & Medical Cases, and Malpractice Cases.