I am writing regarding Peter Sfikas January JADA column, "Informed Consent: How Performing a Less Invasive Procedure Led to Claim of Battery" (
JADA 2006;137:1013
). Please note: the practice of medicine, generally, is in the autonomous domain of each state as to regulations, standard-of-care expectations, licensure credentials, continuing education demands, prescribing needs and board of registration oversight. The term "medical battery" could mean, legally, one thing in state "A" and another in state "B."
A battery per se is an intentional tort (civil wrong) and, if so accorded legal status with medical battery, then likely the dentist-licensee would not be insured, owing to the intentional aspect of the claim. Some jurisdictions hold that gross negligence is on parity with intentional conduct, thus not within the scope of dental/medical malpractice coverages, in which only ordinary negligent misconduct is deemed foreseeable and insurable for the best interests of both patient and licensee.
Caveat vendor: licensees ought to read fully and appreciate their insurance covenants and expectations. And attorneys bringing battery claims must not express issues of intentional or gross negligence scenarios!