Legal Evaluation
Can I Sue My Dentist?
Whether a bad outcome can support a malpractice claim depends on a specific legal standard, not just how serious the injury turned out to be. Here's how that evaluation actually works.
Complication vs. Negligence
Every dental procedure carries some risk of an unwanted outcome, even when it's performed correctly. A nerve injury during a wisdom tooth extraction, an infection after a root canal, or a failed implant can all happen without any negligence involved. What separates an unfortunate complication from malpractice is whether the dentist's conduct fell below the standard of care that a reasonably careful dentist would have provided under similar circumstances — and whether that failure is what actually caused the harm.
What's Actually Evaluated
A malpractice evaluation typically looks at specific, documentable facts rather than how the outcome feels. Common questions include:
- Was appropriate imaging (X-rays, a CBCT scan) taken and reviewed before treatment, given what was being planned?
- Was the patient informed of material risks before treatment, as part of informed consent?
- Did the dentist follow a treatment approach that a reasonably careful dentist would have followed given the same findings?
- Once a problem was reported or became apparent, did the dentist respond appropriately and promptly, or was the issue dismissed or ignored?
- Was the case within the dentist's scope of training, or should it have been referred to a specialist (an endodontist, periodontist, or oral surgeon)?
Why expert review matters
What Strengthens an Evaluation
Cases are generally easier to evaluate, though never guaranteed, when there is:
- A clear, documented injury (imaging, a specialist's diagnosis, a follow-up treatment record).
- A gap between what was done and what standard practice calls for in a similar situation.
- A record of the dentist being told about symptoms and how they responded.
- Treatment records and imaging that can be obtained and reviewed.
None of this guarantees a particular outcome. Every case turns on its own facts, and only a review of your specific records can determine whether a claim is viable.
Not sure if what happened to you was malpractice?
If you're dealing with a specific injury, our pages on nerve damage, implant malpractice, and root canal injuries go into more detail on what's typically evaluated for that type of case. For deadlines, see California's statute of limitations.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is a bad outcome automatically malpractice?
No. Dentistry involves inherent risk, and a recognized complication can occur even when a dentist meets the standard of care. Malpractice requires showing the dentist's care fell below what a reasonably careful dentist would have done, and that this specifically caused the harm.
Do I need an expert to have a case?
In California, dental malpractice cases generally require expert testimony to establish the standard of care and show how it was breached, since these are technical questions outside a typical juror's knowledge.
How long do I have to act in California?
Generally one year from when you discovered (or reasonably should have discovered) the injury, or three years from the date of the injury, whichever comes first, plus a required 90-day pre-suit notice. See our page on California's deadlines for details.
Related Pages
Page last reviewed for accuracy: September 2026.
Sources
This page is for general information only and is not legal or medical advice. Laws and figures such as damages caps change; verify current details with a licensed attorney before relying on them.