A New York appellate court has ruled against dentist Alexander Lee in a dental malpractice case involving a patient who suffered nerve damage following a tooth extraction. The ruling, issued on August 5, 2026, by the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, means that Lee must face the allegations made by the plaintiff, Sage Miranda Osborne, in court. This decision is significant as it highlights the responsibilities of dental professionals in ensuring proper patient care and informed consent.
The case, known as Osborne v. Merchant Square Dental, PLLC, stems from an incident that occurred on October 23, 2018, when Lee extracted Osborne's lower left wisdom tooth at Merchant Square Dental, PLLC. Osborne, who was working as a receptionist at the dental office at the time, began experiencing numbness in her tongue after the procedure. She was later diagnosed with traumatic neuropathy of the left lingual nerve in August 2019. Osborne alleges that Lee's actions during the extraction and his failure to refer her to a specialist led to her permanent injury.
Osborne filed a lawsuit against Lee, Merchant Square Dental, and its principal, Syed Masihudden, claiming dental malpractice and lack of informed consent. The case reached the Appellate Division after Lee's motion for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint was denied by the Supreme Court of Orange County on March 5, 2024. Lee's appeal sought to overturn this ruling, arguing that he did not deviate from accepted dental practices.
The Appellate Division upheld the lower court's decision, affirming that Lee did not meet the burden of proof required to dismiss the allegations against him. The court noted, "Lee failed to establish his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the cause of action alleging dental malpractice insofar as asserted against him." The judges on the panel included Francesca E. Connolly, Barry E. Warhit, Helen Voutsinas, and Donna-Marie E. Golia.
In its ruling, the court highlighted that Lee's dental expert's affirmation was insufficient. The expert's statements were described as "conclusory" and did not adequately address the contradictions in testimony from both parties. Specifically, the court pointed out that Osborne testified she was not experiencing pain before the extraction, which contradicted the expert's claims. Furthermore, Lee's failure to create a contemporaneous dental record and to address the possibility of a tooth fragment being left behind were also cited as significant issues.
The court also addressed the claim of lack of informed consent. To prove this claim, a plaintiff must show that the provider failed to disclose treatment alternatives and the risks associated with the treatment. The court noted that Lee admitted he did not obtain written consent from Osborne and did not discuss alternative treatments or risks with her. The judges stated, "Lee's dental expert failed to address this evidence," reinforcing the court's decision to deny Lee's motion.
This ruling is important for patients and dental professionals alike. It underscores the necessity for dentists to maintain accurate records and to communicate effectively with their patients about procedures and potential risks. The decision also emphasizes the legal obligation of dental practitioners to obtain informed consent before performing any procedures.
Going forward, this case may influence how dental malpractice claims are handled in New York. It sets a precedent that may encourage patients to pursue claims when they feel they have not received adequate care or informed consent. The ruling serves as a reminder to dental professionals about the importance of adhering to established standards of care and the legal implications of failing to do so.
As for what’s next in this case, it is unclear if Lee will seek further appeals. The court's ruling effectively allows Osborne's claims to proceed, and there may be related cases pending that could further clarify the standards for dental malpractice and informed consent in New York. Details were not available in the court filing regarding any potential further legal actions by Lee.