Description
Discussion Board: Summarize the case and include your most significant finding and elaborate on what you learned from this assignment. i will attach the one page for you to summerize.Respond to one classmate: after reading the discussion from a classmate, provide a response to their summary and include additional terminology or a law or regulation that could align but may have been missed. For full points, response must be constructive and reference details from the Code of Ethics or the DHBC Law and Regulationsplease respond to this post.Article Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC88605…In this article, the legal case “United States et al. ex red. Simpson v. HQRC et al., No.2017-cv-02823” talks about how a management company by the name of HQRC was found to be doing fraudulent insurance claims. This management company was providing their services for various dental clinics and during the years of 2011-2021, these false insurance claims were being made. The company did a fraud amount of about $754 million and were made to pay the amount of fraud done plus interest on the fee’s. Something I found significant in this was the amount of deception the providers have done. They have not only lied to the insurance company, but also the patients and themselves (as they are doing this unethically). I think the managing company of these dental providers also had to have know about this as they can see what is being charged out and connect it to the patients records. With this assignment I learned how even the smallest things that one may consider “errors” can build up and become something big. In this legal case they claimed to have accidentally sent out the treatment provided under wrong codes, however even if this was the case, the amount of little mistakes they claimed to have had built up to something so big that it ended up doing a lot of damage. Not only were they accused of fraud but they have also misled their patients and even created a burden to those with Medical as the office is no longer able to accept this insurance!
Unformatted Attachment Preview
1
1. Describe the law case and the violation accusations (include the article link)
The case was between Arline Carr (the plaintiff) and Lloyd Dickey (the defendant). Carr filed
charges against Dickey, a dentist, for malpractice, assault, and battery. The case also involved the
extraction of the plaintiff’s tooth by the defendant. According to the case, the lower left wisdom
tooth is designated number 17. The plaintiff had accused the defendant of extracting the wrong
tooth. Even after the defendant extracted tooth number 19, the plaintiff continued feeling pain.
The defendant had done an X-ray and even showed it to the plaintiff. They agreed that tooth
number 18 was to be filled and tooth number 19 be extracted. The defendant even showed the
plaintiff the radiolucent, indicating tooth Number 19 was decayed. https://law.justia.com/cases/
california/court-of-appeal/2d/163/416.html
2. Use terminology from the CDA or CDHA Code of Ethics document (a minimum of
four terms and definitions) that align with the violation. Include the definitions.
Competence- the competent dentist can diagnose and treat the patient’s oral health needs and
work according to the patient’s interests. It also entails continuing self-assessment about the
outcome of patient care.
Autonomy: Patient has the right to choose what should be done with their own bodies. They are
capable of autonomous decision-making. The defendant should have done what the plaintiff
asked. Still, the dentist must weigh the benefits and harm and inform the patient of contemporary
standards of oral health.
Professionalism- dental hygienists should be committed to promoting oral healthcare initiatives.
That means the defendant should practice in a way that does not ruin community trust.
2
Informed consent: It reflects on the patient’s right to self-decision. A dental hygienist must
obtain the fully informed consent of the patient. That means the doctor should have obtained full
consent before removing teeth number 19.
3. Affix the violations to the DHBC laws and regulations and reference how they link.
Section 1683. (a) Every dentist, dental health professional, or other licensed health professional
who performs a service on a patient in a dental office shall identify himself or herself in the
patient record by signing his or her name or an identification number and initials next to the
service performed and shall date those treatment entries in the record. Any person licensed under
this chapter who owns, operates, or manages a dental office shall ensure compliance with this
requirement.
The regulation links with the violation; according to the case, the defendant performed an X-ray
and told the patient that tooth number 19 was to be extracted. The plaintiff then told the
defendant to do what he felt was correct. The defendant claims that the plaintiff consented, while
the plaintiff states that she did not consent to the extraction of tooth number 19. There was no
record by signing, which makes it a violation of DHBC laws and regulations.
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
