CT Dental Jurisprudence study materials
CT Dental Jurisprudence study resources

Bruises at a Pulpotomy and an Impaired Sedation Dentist

CT Dental Jurisprudence · Put your knowledge to work in context.

All case studies

Bruises at a Pulpotomy and an Impaired Sedation Dentist

A 9-year-old patient, Lily, comes for a pulpotomy with her mother's boyfriend. The assistant notices a cluster of purple-brown bruises on Lily's upper arm and back and a small tear of the frenulum. The boyfriend says she "fell off her bike," but the story changes when the mother arrives. The dentist, Dr. Okafor, says, "We're not social workers; let's just treat the tooth and not get involved." Later that afternoon, Dr. Okafor smells alcohol on the breath of the other dentist, Dr. Burns, who is scheduled to provide oral conscious sedation for a 6-year-old in 30 minutes. Dr. Burns says he "only had two beers at lunch" and refuses to cancel. The practice owner wants to handle it "in-house" to avoid a DPH complaint.

1. What are Dr. Okafor's reporting obligations for Lily, and what should happen before she leaves the office?

Read the worked answer

Dr. Okafor is a mandated reporter. A cluster of bruises in different stages, a torn frenulum, and a changing explanation are red flags for physical abuse. Connecticut requires a mandated reporter who suspects child abuse or neglect to make an immediate oral report to the Department of Children and Families at 1-800-842-2288, followed by a written report within 48 hours. The dentist does not need to prove abuse; reasonable suspicion is enough.

Before Lily leaves, the dental emergency should be treated, but the dentist should not interrogate the child or confront the adults in a way that could escalate the situation. The assistant should document the location, size, color, and shape of the bruises and record the adults' statements verbatim. The report should be made even if the mother objects. Good-faith reporting is protected, and failure to report can carry legal consequences. "We're not social workers" is not a lawful basis for silence.

2. How should the practice respond to Dr. Burns's impairment and impending sedation case?

Read the worked answer

Patient safety comes first. Dr. Burns should be removed from clinical duties immediately and must not provide oral conscious sedation to the 6-year-old. The odor of alcohol, admission of drinking, and refusal to cancel create a reasonable basis to believe he is impaired. The practice should arrange a safe ride home, document the observations objectively, and notify the practice owner. Another dentist should take over the sedation case or reschedule it.

A good-faith report to DPH's Office of Practitioner Licensing and Investigations is appropriate because DPH regulates licensee impairment and patient safety. The practice should also consider referral to a professional wellness or peer-assistance program, but that does not replace removing him from patient care. Handling it "in-house" without any outside report may leave patients at risk and expose the practice to liability. The staff should be told whom to call if he returns to the operatory.

3. What documentation and follow-up should be created, and what is the role of the DPH complaint process?

Read the worked answer

The record should contain a factual, non-conclusory note about Lily: the bruises observed, the frenulum tear, the explanations given, the time DCF was called, the name of the intake worker, and the written report confirmation. It should not include speculation about who caused the injuries. For Dr. Burns, the practice should document the date, time, observations, the decision to remove him from the schedule, who covered the sedation case, and any safety steps taken.

A DPH complaint starts an investigation by the Department of Public Health, which may refer the matter to the Connecticut Dental Commission for a hearing. Discipline can include reprimand, probation, suspension, or revocation, and the process may take months. The practice should cooperate, preserve records, and avoid retaliating against staff who report. The goal is not to punish for its own sake; it is to protect patients and ensure that impaired or abusive conduct is reviewed by the proper authority.