Should a dentist's routine procedure testimony be allowed to support her defense in a malpractice suit?

In a malpractice suit, a dentist’s testimony regarding her routine procedures can indeed be used to support her defense, but it typically needs to be bolstered by corroborative evidence. This approach is grounded in the legal principle that personal testimony alone may not be sufficient to establish the standard of care expected in dental practice.

Corroborative evidence can include expert witness testimony that validates the dentist’s account of her procedures, documentation of treatments provided, or peer-reviewed studies that reflect the accepted practices within the dental community. Having this additional layer of evidence is crucial in demonstrating that the dentist met the standard of care and that her actions were in line with what is typically expected from a competent practitioner in similar circumstances.

Simply relying on the dentist's own testimony without this supporting evidence could leave gaps in the defense case, as it may not adequately convince the court or jury of the validity of her claims regarding routine procedures. Thus, while the testimony is certainly relevant and can be included, the necessity of corroborative evidence amplifies its strength and credibility in the context of a malpractice defense.