DENTIST - EXTREME OVERTREATMENT CASE

Overtreatment is a major area of dental board and malpractice claims against dentists.  Unlike doctors who are often subject to unwarranted peer review as a major source of board action, dental board inquires are often patient initiated or competitor initiated.

In an article titled "Unethical Treatment Leads to Lawsuit and Dental Board Action" from The Doctors Company (a medical malpractice insurer) is a risk management case study for dental professionals. It describes a real (but anonymized) malpractice scenario involving a celebrity dentist—a practitioner known from TV commercials, news coverage, and a prominent website—who provided excessive, unnecessary, and substandard cosmetic/restorative treatment to a patient.
Summary of the Article's Content

A 46-year-old male patient initially saw a general dentist for an exam and X-rays.
He then switched to this "celebrity dentist," influenced by the dentist's public persona.
The celebrity dentist repeated exams, X-rays, and photos before proceeding.
The treatment plan (per records) included aggressive procedures: crowns on 9 teeth, veneers on 11 teeth, laser treatments on 6 teeth, a bridge on 3 teeth, and 1 implant.
The dentist performed restorative work, charging the patient $47,000.

Post-treatment, the patient suffered ongoing pain, dissatisfaction with cosmetic results, and issues like ill-fitting restorations.

Seeking help elsewhere, the patient incurred an estimated $63,000 in corrective exams and treatments from other dentists.

The patient filed a successful professional liability (malpractice) claim, resulting in an indemnity payment to the patient.

The patient also filed a complaint with the state dental board.

The board found the care substandard, indefensible, unnecessary, and incomplete. It cited violations including failure to address pain complaints, unethical conduct, excessive treatment, repeated negligence, and unprofessional behavior.

Poor/inconsistent dental records further weakened the dentist's defense.

The article emphasizes lessons in risk management: ethical obligations, evidence-based treatment planning, avoiding over-treatment (especially financially motivated), thorough documentation, and patient-centered care to prevent dual civil and regulatory consequences.

Additional Context from Other Sources

This case study has been republished or referenced in dental association blogs, such as the Florida Dental Association's "Beyond the Bite" (2016), which mirrors the details closely and frames it as a warning about excessive cosmetic/restorative plans.
While the article anonymizes the dentist and state, similar high-profile cases of celebrity or media-famous dentists facing accusations of over-treatment, unnecessary crowns/veneers, negligence, and board discipline have occurred. For example:

In California, Dr. Sherri Worth (featured on TV's "The Swan") faced multiple patient complaints leading to a 2017 license surrender after allegations of fraud, incompetence, excessive/unnecessary treatments (including crowns/veneers on healthy teeth), billing for unperformed procedures, and altering records. Patients reported severe pain, ill-fitting work, and high costs; one lawsuit awarded significant damages.  See News Article on Dr .Worth's case.

Aspen Dental, a large chain, has repeatedly faced accusations of deceptive advertising across several states. Common allegations include advertising services (like initial exams, x-rays, or consultations) as "free" while later charging patients (or their insurance), and claiming to accept "all" insurance plans when excluding programs like Medicaid/MassHealth.

• In Massachusetts (2021 lawsuit, settled 2023): The state Attorney General sued Aspen Dental for bait-and-switch campaigns that allegedly cheated thousands of consumers. The settlement required a $3.5 million payment, including restitution for affected patients.
• Earlier cases: Settlements in states like Pennsylvania (2010, over "free" exams charged to insurance), Indiana (2015, false advertising of free/discounted services), and New York (related deceptive practices in broader investigations).

These often stemmed from consumer complaints about misleading ads luring patients in pain with false promises.

Byte Aligners (Class Action Lawsuit)

In a 2025 class action lawsuit against Byte (Straight Smile LLC, associated with Dentsply Sirona), plaintiffs accused the company of false advertising and deceptive practices in marketing at-home teeth aligners. Claims included falsely portraying the products as "doctor-directed," "safe," and properly overseen by licensed dentists, when oversight was allegedly inadequate—leading to patient harm like tooth damage. The suit targeted misleading claims aimed at vulnerable consumers seeking affordable alternatives to traditional orthodontics.

One danger is that even a lawsuit without merit can trigger insurance coverage and settlements.  The dental board will then be notified and a separate inquiry will begin.

Beware of dangers in dental advertising, where claims about "free" services, insurance acceptance, or product safety must be accurate to avoid consumer protection violations. Many result in settlements without admission of wrongdoing, often involving fines, restitution, and reformed advertising practices.  For corporations this may be simply a cost of doing business but for the individual practitioner it can threaten the dentist's license.

Other reported incidents involve pediatric or general dentists accused of unnecessary procedures on children/adults, leading to board investigations, suspensions, or revocations (e.g., excessive fillings, crowns, or extractions).

Recently, the Doctors Company's published its findings that shows improper performance (including over-treatment) as a top allegation in malpractice claims, with average indemnities around $86,000–$116,000 in some categories. Excessive cosmetic/restorative work—driven by trends in veneers, crowns, and "smile makeovers"—remains a recurring risk, often tied to poor records, ignored patient complaints, and ethical lapses. These malpractice actions ultimately result in board inquiries as well.

Hire the Best Dental Defense Lawyer

When a dentist faces a Dental Board investigation, the stakes extend far beyond a simple legal dispute; their professional identity, livelihood, and reputation are all on the line. Retaining a specialized advocate like Daniel Horowitz is a critical defensive maneuver because his firm offers a "Physician Defense" team that understands the specific mechanics of professional licensing actions, including those involving allegations of excessive treatment or record-keeping errors.

As a State Bar of California Certified Criminal Law Specialist with over 40 years of experience and more than 200 jury trials, Horowitz brings a high-caliber trial-tested approach to administrative hearings where the board’s experts may be "unreasonable" or the evidence "bad science." His team—which notably includes a physician-lawyer—is uniquely equipped to challenge the technical medical-legal nuances of a case, ensuring that a dentist is not just another statistic in a regulatory machine but is represented by a "real lawyer" who can navigate parallel criminal and civil challenges to keep their practice intact.
 

If you are facing a dental board inquiry call Daniel Horowitz at (925) 283-1863 to schedule an initial consultation.