For this paralegal certificate assignment, I was asked to write an interoffice memo based on the following scenario.
“During the course of performing a root canal on Dawn, Dr. Toth, an oral surgeon, gets an implement stuck in Dawn’s tooth and it breaks. Dr. Toth cannot extract the broken piece of the implement from Dawn’s tooth, so he leaves it there. He completes the root canal and does not disclose to Dawn that he has left part of a dental implement imbedded in her tooth. Dawn’s other dental work, including the placement of a crown on the tooth with the implement in it, is then completed. Two years later, Dawn begins to have significant problems with the tooth on which Dr. Toth performed the root canal. Dawn has a serious infection that requires the removal of not only the tooth that Dr. Toth performed the surgery on, but also the teeth on either side of it. She misses a significant amount of work to have the dental work performed and suffers a considerable amount of pain.”
Office Memorandum
TO: Professor Brown CASE: Dawn Smith vs, Dr. Toth
FROM: Natalie Matos, Paralegal CASE TYPE: Negligence
DATE OF MEMO: May 13, 2026 OFFICE FILE NUMBER: 26-05-114
RE: Potential Negligence Claim Against Dr. Toth for Dental Malpractice in Florida
Issue
Whether Dr. Toth’s conduct during and after Ms. Smith’s root canal procedure satisfies the elements of a negligence claim under Florida law.
Summary
Yes. Dr. Toth’s conduct likely satisfies all four elements of a negligence claim under Florida law: duty, breach, causation, and damages. As Ms. Smith’s oral surgeon, Dr. Toth owed her a professional duty to provide treatment consistent with the current professional standard of care. By leaving a broken dental instrument embedded in Ms. Smith’s tooth and failing to disclose it, Dr. Toth likely breached that duty. The retained instrument and lack of disclosure appear to have caused or substantially contributed to Ms. Smith’s later infection and loss of multiple teeth. Ms. Smith also suffered significant damages, including pain, additional medical procedures, and lost wages. Given this information, Ms. Smith likely has a medical negligence claim against Dr. Toth.
Analysis
1. Duty of Care
First, Florida defines the prevailing professional standard of care as:
“…that level of care, skill, and treatment which, in light of all relevant surrounding circumstances, is recognized as acceptable and appropriate by reasonably prudent similar health care providers.”(Fla. Stat. § 766.102(1)).
Dentists and oral surgeons are healthcare providers under the Florida medical negligence law. Fla. Stat. § 766.202.
Dr. Toth owed Ms. Smith a duty of care because he was her oral surgeon and performed a root canal procedure, thereby creating a doctor-patient relationship. As such, Dr. Toth owed Ms. Smith a professional duty to perform the procedure according to the prevailing professional standard of care required under Florida law. Fla. Stat. § 766.102 (1).
Additionally, healthcare providers owe patients a duty to disclose significant information regarding treatment complications and retained foreign objects. A reasonable oral surgeon would be expected either to remove the broken instrument or fully inform the patient that a portion remained embedded in the tooth so that appropriate follow-up treatment or monitoring could occur.
2. Breach of duty
Dr. Toth likely breached the professional standard of duty of care in two ways.
First, he left part of a dental implement embedded in Ms. Smith’s tooth after it broke during the procedure. While instruments can occasionally break during dental procedures without negligence, the failure to adequately address the retained object may constitute a deviation from accepted professional standards. Under Fla. Stat. § 766.102(3)(b), the existence of a foreign body unintentionally left within a patient may create a presumption of medical negligence.
Second, Dr. Toth failed to disclose the broken instrument to Ms. Smith. He completed the root canal and allowed additional dental work, including the placement of a crown, without informing her that a foreign object remained inside the tooth. A reasonable healthcare provider would likely disclose such information because it could affect future treatment decisions and create risks of infection or complications.
As per Fla. Stat. § 381.028 and Fla. Stat. § 466.017(14), Dr. Toth was also required to notify the patient and report the adverse incident to the appropriate governmental departments, which, to our knowledge, he did not do.
3. Causation
Florida medical negligence law requires cause and foreseeability per Fla. Stat. § 766.102
Ms. Smith developed a severe infection in the exact tooth where Dr. Toth left the broken instrument. The infection became serious enough that three teeth had to be removed.
The average person could reasonably conclude that, but for Dr. Toth leaving the instrument in the tooth and failing to disclose it, Ms. Smith would not have suffered the later infection and extensive tooth loss. Had she been informed, she may have sought corrective treatment earlier, before the infection worsened.
It is also reasonably foreseeable that leaving a foreign object inside a patient’s body could lead to infection, pain, additional procedures, and tooth loss.
4. Monetary Loss
Ms. Smith suffered substantial losses, including:
Serious infection
Removal of three teeth
Significant physical pain
Additional dental procedures
Missed work and lost wages
Florida law permits recovery for both economic and non-economic damages in medical negligence actions, including medical expenses, lost income, and pain and suffering, per Fla. Stat. § § 766.118, 766.202(3), and 768.81.
Conclusion
Dr. Toth’s conduct likely satisfies all elements of a negligence claim under Florida law. As her oral surgeon, Dr. Toth owed Ms. Smith a professional duty of care. He likely breached that duty by leaving a broken dental instrument embedded in her tooth and failing to disclose it. The retained instrument and nondisclosure of the instrument appear to have caused Ms. Smith’s severe infection, loss of multiple teeth, pain, and lost wages. Because Ms. Smith suffered substantial damages directly connected to Dr. Toth’s conduct, she likely has a strong medical negligence claim against him under Florida law.
Also note that FL has certain requirements we will need to follow when filing a medical malpractice claim, which are found in Fla. Stat. § 766.106.
Works Cited
Fla. Stat. § 381.028 (2025), https://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0300-0399/0381/Sections/0381.028.html
Fla. Stat. § 466.017 (14) (2025), https://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0400-0499/0466/Sections/0466.017.html
Fla. Stat. § 766.102 (2025), https://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0766/Sections/0766.102.html
Fla. Stat. § 766.106 (2025), https://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0766/Sections/0766.106.html
Fla. Stat. § 766.118 (2025), https://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0766/Sections/0766.118.html
Fla. Stat. § 766.202 (2025), https://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0766/Sections/0766.202.html
Fla. Stat. § 768.81 (2025), https://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0768/Sections/0768.81.html
References
“Gooding v. University Hosp. Bldg., Inc.” Justia Law, law.justia.com/cases/florida/supreme-court/1984/62828-0.html.
“It Is Time for Florida Courts to Revisit Gooding.” The Florida Bar, 14 Jan. 2019, www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-journal/it-is-time-for-florida-courts-to-revisit-gooding.
Meinzinger, Mary, and Miller. “Chapter 14. Tort Law, Product Liability, and Consumer Law.” Paralegal Today: The Legal Team at Work, 8th ed., Cengage, 2022, pp. 429–31.
—. “Chapter 14. Tort Law, Product Liability, and Consumer Law.” Paralegal Today: The Legal Team at Work, 8th ed., Cengage, 2022, p. 432.
—. “Chapter 14. Tort Law, Product Liability, and Consumer Law.” Paralegal Today: The Legal Team at Work, 8th ed., Cengage, 2022, pp. 434–36.
“negligence.” LII / Legal Information Institute, www.law.cornell.edu/wex/negligence.