I am waiting to hear back from an attorney who said I may have a case. I suffer from an injectional injury for a root canal... my basic problem is that there is a one year statue of limitations in my state and I didn't file withing that time. Believe it or not, an attorney told me I had two years to sue... so I waited hoping it would get better (it has not). My dentist told me point blank the condition would not be permanent, even after I confronted him with studies showing some are. He insisted that injectional injuries are never permanent... thus my attorney thinks I may be able to get around the state of limitations due to my dentist giving me the wrong info. I believe there is enough evidence that articaine should not be used for lower mandibular nerve blocks, and another dentist said my injury is usually caused by injection too fast or from sloppy technique. I'll let the board know what happens... I'll probably hear next week. I really want to sue because dentists must learn that this drug is DANGEROUS and should NEVER be used for lower mandibular blocks.

Bob

Hi Bob...good luck with your legal case! Do you think your dentist concealed the permanency of your injury to you? Maybe your lawyer could prove fraudulent concealment? What is a patient to do if they are repeatedly being told that the symptoms are temporary?? I hope you get the chance to have your case heard before a jury.

Also, what is the legal definition of 'permanency' with respect to dental injuries? 6 months? 2 years? Maybe that is something that needs to be defined by law taking into consideration the statute of limitations?
..................................................

"The Court also discussed the doctrine of fraudulent concealment which includes an unintentional deception. If for example the doctor or dentist conceals the injury or the permanency of the injury from the patient, then the theory of estoppel prevents the doctor from invoking the statute of limitations. Here again the Court explained that it is for a jury to decide whether the remarks were made. The Court ruled for the first time that reasonable diligence and not actual knowledge was the test for when the statute will commence after a fraudulent concealment.

Applying the discovery rule and fraudulent concealment to the facts in the two dental malpractice cases, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court reasoned that since the dentists claimed to have advised the plaintiffs of the injury, but the plaintiffs denied being told the numbness was anything but transitory, the cases could not be decided by Summary Judgment by the lower court.

It is for the jury to decide who is telling the truth. The interesting twist here is that the patients knew they were numb right away but it was still for the jury to determine whether they knew they were injured. The outcome is anything but trivial as the Fine case involved a challenge to a half million dollar verdict.

The lesson for both lawyers and clients is to examine carefully when and how the potential plaintiff learned of his injury and what the doctor was telling the patient. If the client was reasonably diligent and still could not have known of his injury for less than two years from the date he enters the lawyer’s office the client may be the one for whom the statute tolls!

http://www.legalpa.com/For-Whom-the-Statute-Tolls.html

No wonder we havnt seen ya around much lately? BUSY just trying to live with all the shock of your life!!!

IMO... SUE the lawyer that gave you bogus info!! What year were you injected? Was the use of articaine labeled yet in the USA, that it may cause nerve damage? I know that info. is posted here on that, i cant find it though!! Charlotte.... HELP?

Why not SUE the maker of the drug? IF POSSIBLE!! Because i dont know about WHAT this lawyer is trying to feed you?

I know im in a different State and i see what Charlotte posted and maybe its different where you are?

Keep in mind that my lawsuit was filed 23 days past the statue of limitations.. And i did try to sue the attorney for that and the bastard didnt have any insurance.... Dont forget about that one Bob! So im adding my lost lawsuit once again in case anyone is interested this year.. http://vlex.com/vid/21715045

I was injured in July of 07. One attorney told me in April 08 that I had two years. The attorney I'm now consulting says I have a case IF I can get around the statue of limitations... which in my state is one year. He thinks I can but is asking around. The dentist that injured me told me several times that it wouldn't be permanent, so he thinks just that alone may get me out of the statute. I'll let everyone know what happens... I expect to find out more next week.

Bob

I'm still waiting for my attorney to get back to me about the statue of limitations. He says the folks he needs to talk to are out of town, so hopefully I'll get more info next week.

Bob

If they did use formaldehyde on you (and blame it on the injection...that has happened more than once with sargenti using dentists), then your statute should re-start from the time that you found out. In most states, I believe, the "re-start" statute isn't as long, but it's there. If you need help with your records you can email us at info@sargentipaste.org and we will do whatever we can. If you email us the name of your dentist and a short story about what happened, we will see if your dentist in our list of suspected users. have you checked your xray to be sure that there is no material outside your tooth?

I'm 100% certain no formaldehyde containing material was used. I discussed with my dentist beforehand what material to use to fill the tooth... I used "Realfill" which is a non toxic filler with no formaldehyde and no I don't have any overfill outside of the root. I have since had another root canal with some overfill in one of the roots, but I have not experienced any discomfort from it as yet (two months post canal). My lingual nerve damage was caused by an injection of articaine, no question about it. Thanks so much for your concern though.

Bob