[Stoat]

They were under sedation when he played his antics. That goes beyond just a joke.

Agreed....it was completely wrong and unprofessional.  He shouldn't have even considered doing it.

I’m sure if you (or your wife or kids) had it happen to them you would be understanding.

I would have been incredibly ticked off and would have quit.  But would I have sued him?

No actual, physical harm was done, but the massive lawsuit payouts that are so common these days are quite an incentive.  I hope that I would have the strength and ability to resist the temptation and not contribute to the spiraling healthcare costs.

They were under sedation when he played his antics. That goes beyond just a joke.

Agreed....it was completely wrong and unprofessional.  He shouldn't have even considered doing it.

I’m sure if you (or your wife or kids) had it happen to them you would be understanding.

[LongElegantLegs]

I wouldn’t have sued, but I probably would have taken out a full-page advertisement in the newspaper, explaining what he’d done.

She could also have kept her job, and warned off potential customers.

[WL-law]

I would have been incredibly ticked off and would have quit. But would I have sued him?

I think the discussion of the employee/patient is not the real point here.

She sued the doctor for his intentional behavior, not for negligent dentistry.

The dentist's malpractice insurance covers his possible negligence, not his intentional acts. This is true for all malpractice insurance policies, and is a matter of general public policy regarding insurance -- you can't insure yourself for your intentional wrongful acts, only negligence.

The insurance company, once it learned the facts, was therefore correct in its determination that it was not obligated to defend him against her claims, nor to reimburse him for the amount he -- and he alone - agreed to pay in settlement.

He then turned around and sued his insurance company for failing to represent him and indemnify him, but the insurance company was CORRECT in denying that coverage.

Now a jury has made an clearly incorrect decision to stick the insurance company with responsibility, because it's easy for a lawyer to draw on jury's hatred of insurance companies. This is what made, i.e., John Edwards who he is as well.

The action of the jury here just underscores how messed up our tort law system is.

[Red in Blue PA]

Re: I would have been incredibly ticked off and would have quit. But would I have sued him? No actual, physical harm was done

So what is to stop him from doing this again and again????