What law do you believe exists that requires the dentist to treat you regardless?
What law do you believe exists that requires the dentist to treat you regardless?
I dont understand your question.
How is pain in the tooth a dentist refused to treat over his stupidity not considered a medical disability? That makes 0 sense. Youre mistaking American Disability Act (ADA) with American Dental Association. I want to file a complaint with them since its a dental org that I greatly assume he belongs to.
How would I get slapped with sanctions for filing a "frivolous" claim when its NOT a frivolous claim because I was in pain?? No offense but that doesnt make any sense. And why sanctions? I'm an individual not a business.
To add to what I may have left out.. the secretary said she'd give me 5 minutes to think over what I want to do, whether to get the unnecessary xrays or to leave.
I have a recording to attest to all I said.
Those medical problems that are temporary in nature (e.g. last only a few weeks or months) are generally not sufficient to be a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Thus, a cold, flu, sprained ankle, tooth aches, bruises, etc are all things that, while certainly medical problems are not the sorts of things that amount to disability under the Act.
Your post wasn't clear what you meant by ADA. On a legal forum, ADA is generally going to be taken to mean Americans with Disabilities Act since that is an actual law. The American Dental Association has no role in the law aside from lobbying to help dentists get laws favorable to them. Note that the American Dental Association also has no role in supervising or disciplining dentists.
Any litigant, individual or business, may be sanctioned for filing a frivolous complaint with the court. You being in pain isn't what determines if the complaint is frivolous. It is frivolous if the complaint has absolutely no merit, i.e. a complaint that has no basis in the law. If you sue the dentist for refusing to help you then you need to be able to point to some law that required the dentist to help you or you may face not only dismissal but perhaps sanctions as well. You cannot sue simply on the basis that it was "wrong" for the dentist to refuse to serve you. There are many things that people do that may be considered wrong, rude, inconsiderate or whatever that are not prohibited by law.
So why dont YOU endure not going to a dentist for a long time for your toothache then?? See if thats temporary. If you still think it is you shouldnt be on this thread.
How is enduring pain from negligence from a doc frivolous??Any litigant, individual or business, may be sanctioned for filing a frivolous complaint with the court. You being in pain isn't what determines if the complaint is frivolous. It is frivolous if the complaint has absolutely no merit, i.e. a complaint that has no basis in the law. If you sue the dentist for refusing to help you then you need to be able to point to some law that required the dentist to help you or you may face not only dismissal but perhaps sanctions as well. You cannot sue simply on the basis that it was "wrong" for the dentist to refuse to serve you. There are many things that people do that may be considered wrong, rude, inconsiderate or whatever that are not prohibited by law.
You came here seeking answers and you got them. That you don't like them doesn't make them the wrong answers.
Doctors and dentists are not obligated to render treatment except under very specific scenarios and a sore tooth is not one of them.
Feel free to files suit. There isn't anything stopping you and you're positive that you're correct. This is not to say that a lawyer can be compelled to take your case or that you are qualified to handle it yourself pro se...but you can.
So go, have fun! I'm sure you can find the appropriate court and they'll be some paperwork to fill out...but you've got this all under control.
I have endured dental pain that was temporary and I'd have liked to have seen a dentist faster than I did. So I don't doubt that you were miserable as a result. But that fact does not change what the law provides, which is that the dentist is under no obligation to treat you. I realize that you think the dentist should have that obligation, but what you think should be required and what the law actually requires are not the same thing.
What is frivolous is filing a complaint when you have no valid claim to pursue. Your pain was real, I don't doubt that at all. But simply being in pain doesn't give you a valid claim in court. You have to point to some law in your complaint that obligates the dentist to treat you in that situation. If you can't point to anything that obligates the dentist to do it then your complaint may be deemed frivolous because you have no valid claim to pursue.
So stop with the idea that being in pain obligates the dentist to do anything for you or that being in pain is what gives you complaint in court. That's the wrong focus. You have to look first at whether the law imposes a duty on the dentist to treat you. Without that duty there is no lawsuit. And the fact is that there is no law that imposes such a duty.