Preview:

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON
August 28, 2001 Session NATALYA MAZOR v. KENNETH ISAACM AN, D.D.S.
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Shelby County No. 306208-5 Kay Robilio, Judge

No. W2000-01485-COA-R3-CV - Filed June 6, 2002

This is a dental malpractice case. The patient visited the defendant dentist in August 1997 for routine root canal surgery. After the surgery, the patient began experiencing "constant" pain in the tooth in which the root canal was performed. She was told by the defendant dentist that this was pain ordinarily felt after root canal surgery. In February 1999, the patient visited another dentist who discovered that a piece of a drill bit had been left inside patient's tooth during the previous root canal. In December 1999, the patient filed a lawsuit against the defendant dentist for dental malpractice. The defendant dentist filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the patient did not bring the claim within the one year statute of limitations. This motion was granted and the patient now appeals. We reverse, finding that the patient had one year from the time she discovered or should have discovered the foreign object in which to file her lawsuit. Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court Reversed HOLLY KIRBY LILLARD , J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which W. FRANK CRAWFORD , P.J., W.S., and DAVID R. FARMER , J., joined. Patricia L. Penn, Memphis, Tennessee, for the appellant, Natalya Mazor. R. Sadler Bailey, Memphis, Tennessee, for the appellee, Kenneth Isaacman, D.D.S. OPINION This is a dental malpractice case. Plaintiff/appellant Natalya Mazor ("Mazor") visited the defendant/appellee dentist, Kenneth Isaacman, D.D.S. ("Dr. Isaacman"), in August 1997 to have a routine root canal performed on her upper right molar. After the surgery, Mazor began experiencing severe pain in the tooth on which the surgery was performed. When Mazor complained to Dr. Isaacman about the pain in her tooth, Dr. Isaacman said that it was part of the pain ordinarily felt after root canal surgery. However, the pain continued.

In February 1999, Mazor visited another dentist, Dr. Gennady Orlovetsky. After taking Xrays of the tooth, Dr. Orlovetsky discovered that a piece of a drill bit had been left in Mazor's tooth during the previous root canal surgery. In December 1999, some two years after the root canal surgery was performed, Mazor filed a dental malpractice lawsuit against Dr. Isaacman. In her complaint, Mazor asserted that "[d]uring post-surgery, [Mazor] began experiencing excruciating pain in the tooth on which the root canal was performed." She stated that she visited Dr. Orlovetsky in February 1999 "in regard to the constant pain she was experiencing in her tooth since the root canal" surgery in August 1997. Mazor alleged that she was injured by the piece of drill bit "negligently left by [Dr. Isaacman] in [Mazor's] tooth." Mazor alleged that she had suffered permanent injury as a result of Dr. Isaacman's negligence. Mazor claimed that she continues to suffer excruciating pain and has been forced to undergo additional dental procedures in an attempt to alleviate the pain. Anticipating assertion of the applicable one-year statute of limitations, Mazor asserted in the complaint that: Although the date of this stated complaint is beyond the terms stated in the Statute of Limitations for bringing a claim, Tennessee law provides: "In those cases where medical malpractice is asserted to have occurred through negligent performance of surgical procedures, cause of action accrues and statute of limitations commences to run when patient discovers or, in exercise of reasonable care and diligence for his own health and welfare, should have discovered the resulting injury." (citing Tenn. Code Ann.

Download MazorN.pdf

Tennessee Law