Myers v. Dunscombe

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Myers v. Dunscombe

669 P.2d 388, 64 Or. App. 722, 1983 Ore. App. LEXIS 3782

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedSeptember 28, 1983

Docket27191; CA A22180

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 669 P.2d 388 (Myers v. Dunscombe) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Oregon primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Myers v. Dunscombe, 669 P.2d 388, 64 Or. App. 722, 1983 Ore. App. LEXIS 3782 (Or. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

*723 PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff appeals the trial court’s granting of a directed verdict in favor of defendant in this dental malpractice action. We affirm.

Causation of nerve damage which results in the loss of sense of taste is a complicated medical question that must be resolved by expert medical testimony. Cleland v. Wilcox, 273 Or 883, 887, 543 P2d 1032 (1975). The only medical testimony offered by plaintiff was that of Dr. Henkin and Dr. Hodson. Dr. Hodson made no conclusion as to causation in this case. Although Dr. Henkin stated unequivocally that the injection of a local anesthetic administered by defendant’s dental hygienist caused plaintiffs loss of taste, he was unable to state with any degree of certainty whether the injury was the result of a chemical reaction (a rare but known side effect of the drug) or the negligent administration of the injection by defendant’s dental hygienist.

Although there was some evidence the injection was improperly administered, there was no evidence on which the jury could do more than speculate that such negligence caused plaintiffs injury.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

*723 PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff appeals the trial court’s granting of a directed verdict in favor of defendant in this dental malpractice action. We affirm.

Causation of nerve damage which results in the loss of sense of taste is a complicated medical question that must be resolved by expert medical testimony. Cleland v. Wilcox, 273 Or 883, 887, 543 P2d 1032 (1975). The only medical testimony offered by plaintiff was that of Dr. Henkin and Dr. Hodson. Dr. Hodson made no conclusion as to causation in this case. Although Dr. Henkin stated unequivocally that the injection of a local anesthetic administered by defendant’s dental hygienist caused plaintiffs loss of taste, he was unable to state with any degree of certainty whether the injury was the result of a chemical reaction (a rare but known side effect of the drug) or the negligent administration of the injection by defendant’s dental hygienist.

Although there was some evidence the injection was improperly administered, there was no evidence on which the jury could do more than speculate that such negligence caused plaintiffs injury.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

669 P.2d 388, 64 Or. App. 722, 1983 Ore. App. LEXIS 3782, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/myers-v-dunscombe-orctapp-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack