COVID 19 WARNING - TO DENTISTS

I have just learned that consultants are advising dentists to encourage patients to keep scheduled appointments for non-emergency or elective procedures. THIS IS TERRIBLE ADVICE.  DO NOT DO THIS.

In 1920, the North Carolina Supreme Court ruled, “It is a well-settled proposition of law that a person is liable if he negligently exposes another to a contagious or infectious disease.”  In 2006, California courts, citing the North Carolina case and many others, agreed that negligently exposing another to a contagious disease is actionable.  The Plaintiff in the California case won $12.5 million in damages.  Insurance did not cover the loss.

Although the recent CDC guidance urges dentists to take precautions with patients who have signs of respiratory illness, that guidance did NOT state that dentists should see patients for non-emergency or elective dental procedures.

The corona virus is highly contagious.  A person can be contagious without showing any symptoms of respiratory illness.  The virus is deadly.  Public health experts from Johns Hopkins tell us that that there are probably 500,000 infected persons in the United States.  It would be grossly negligent for any health care provider to encourage a patient to come to a public office under these conditions for a routine visit.  Please reschedule these patient appointments as soon as possible.

You, your employees, your patients and families risk infection if you do not reschedule these patients.  Moreover, you risk significant liability and damage to your professional career if the government traces cluster of infections to your office. 

Ain't Nothing Funny About This!!!

In the fall of 1969, Dad drove me to college in Richmond, Virginia, to begin my freshman year.  After moving me into the dorm, he sat down for a father-daughter talk.  Although I was excited to be in college, I was nervous as I didn’t know any one at the school.

          As always, Dad sensed how I felt.  He said, “Now Trice, there’s absolutely nothin’ for you to be worried about here.  If anything comes up that you can’t handle, you just pick up the phone and I’ll be here within two shakes of a rattlesnake’s tail.”

“But, Dad”, I asked, “how will I know whether I can handle the problem on my own?”

He answered, “Well, you think about the problem a bit and if you can’t find anything funny about it, you call me.”

The past few weeks, I’ve thought about that afternoon.  I’m hiding out at my home office from a highly contagious virus that’s killing thousands of people worldwide.  If that weren’t bad enough, the stock market has tanked.  I wonder if my meager life savings will be in the bank next week.  Will there even be a bank next week? I have thought and thought but I can’t find anything funny about this. 

 At a time like this, I believe Dad would have told me to see if I could find anything else that was funny.  After all, any laugh would help.  Luckily a 2019 State Bar Ethics opinion flashed across my news feed. Thinking that you folks could also use a laugh, I’m passing it on.

It seems that a district attorney and a criminal defense lawyer decided to have an affair.  You might think that they would have a few worries – jealous spouses, rashes, or pregnancy.  But these two were most worried about the State Bar finding out.  Now I don’t think the State Bar has a sex investigations unit, but just to be careful, these lawyers asked the Bar for an opinion. 

First, the Bar thoroughly researched the issue, citing cases from around the country.  (I didn’t know that this type of behavior was a nationwide epidemic, but apparently it is a big problem.)  Then, after due consideration, the Bar ruled that in order to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest, the lawyers should FIRST obtain their clients’ informed, written consent to the affair.  

I’m not sure what information you have to give your client to be sure that the consent is informed.  I leave that to your imagination.  As far as getting consent, I guess the district attorney will have to request a special election so he can get written consent from his clients – the local voters.  Imagine the campaign promises!!!  It would surely get out the vote.   Is a majority vote sufficient?  Or does the DA need 100% approval?

But my chief worry is that when these two lovebirds told the Bar that their affair had gone on for “one to three months,” they had unknowingly confessed to the crime of lewd and lascivious cohabitation.  (N.C. Gen. Stat. 14-184). 

Now you might think that the “carrying on” could not have been too “lewd and lascivious” as the lawyers couldn’t remember how long it went on.  Of course, that depends on the legal meaning of “lewd and lascivious cohabitation.”  As a law student, I was clueless – but couldn’t wait to find out.  To my surprise, it doesn’t matter which sex acts took place. The only issue is how long the sex continued.  In the landmark Robinson case, the Court noted that the defendants had been shacked up in a trailer park for   three or four weeks.  That was entirely too long.

Years ago, a local high school asked me to teach a law class.  As I was explaining the dangers of lewd and lascivious conduct, one young fellow asked, “Does that mean that on day 14, I need to break up with my girlfriend and hang out with someone else for a day or so and then I can go back?”  Before I could answer, an angry young lady in the back of the class yelled, “No!!!! You MAY NOT!”   The lecture kind of disintegrated from there and, to my surprise, I was never asked to return.

Dad was one of the wisest people I ever knew.  He’s right.  You can always find something funny.  And when you can laugh, you can handle anything.  We’ll get through this.  We’ve seen worse.

Patrice Walker