That's Life: Why Customer Agreements Matter
That's Life: Why Customer Agreements Matter
By now, everyone has heard about the lawsuit that Lee Culp, CDT, has been drawn into. I have a few thoughts about this.
Every laboratory owner should have a customer agreement that establishes an understanding of who takes responsibility for what. Many of these areas include the fitness of any appliance for a specific use, final determination of fitness, warranty on said work and even terms for payment. Having a written policy on your prescription form can reduce the likelihood of having problems such as those experienced by Mr. Culp.
Ours states the following, and is only an excerpt from our 14,000 word agreement:
1. All orders/requests for products, work, services or shipments requested by the Customer shall be made in writing pursuant to the forms made available by the Company for such purposes. The Company reserves the right to disregard any other order/requests. The Customer shall supply the Company in writing with all specifications and information reasonably required by the Company to prepare the prostheses requested by the Customer. While the Company reserves the right to request, from time to time, further specifications or information, it expressly disclaims any duty to do so and may rely entirely upon the original specifications and information provided by the Customer without any duty of investigation. The Customer shall be solely responsible for the accuracy of any such specifications or information. Further, the Customer shall be responsible to inspect the products, work, services, or shipments requested by Customer, including, without limitation, all prostheses, for proper application, fit, alignment and ultimate use. The Customer shall indemnify, defend, and hold the Company, and its principals, shareholders, directors, officers, employees, representatives, agents, successors and assigns, free and harmless from any and all claims, liabilities and damages, known and unknown, arising by reason of treatment of any patient of the undersigned or the actual application, fit, alignment or ultimate use of any prosthesis prepared by Company hereunder.
2. THE COMPANY AND THE CUSTOMER ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE COMPANY HAS PREPARED THE SUBJECT PROSTHESIS TO THE SPECIFICATIONS OF THE CUSTOMER AND THAT THE CUSTOMER IS SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR SUCH SPECIFICATIONS. THE COMPANY MAKES NO OTHER WARRANTIES AND ALL OTHER WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, ARE HEREBY EXCLUDED. THE UNDERSIGNED FURTHER ACKNOWLEDGES THAT THE COMPANY IS NOT LICENSED TO PRACTICE DENTISTRY AND DOES NOT KNOW THE PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCE AND APPLICATION UNDER WHICH THE PROSTHESIS IS TO BE UTILIZED, AND, THEREFORE, THE COMPANY DOES NOT AND CANNOT WARRANT THAT THE PROSTHESIS ARE FIT FOR ANY PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR THAT THE SAME IS IN ANY WAY MERCHANTABLE.
3. THE UNDERSIGNED FURTHER ACKNOWLEDGES THAT THE COMPANY DOES NOT AND CANNOT WARRANT THE PERFORMANCE OR RESULTS THAT MAY BE OBTAINED BY USING THE PROSTHESIS. THE UNDERSIGNED ACKNOWLEDGES THAT IN NO EVENT WILL COMPANY BE LIABLE TO ANY PARTY, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO PATIENTS OF THE UNDERSIGNED, FOR ANY DAMAGES RESULTING FROM ANY USE OF THE PROSTHESIS OR OTHERWISE, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, WHETHER CLAIMED BY THE UNDERSIGNED, ANY PATIENT OF THE UNDERSIGNED, OR ANY OTHER PARTY. IN ADDITION, THE UNDERSIGNED UNDERSTANDS THAT NO PATIENT OF THE UNDERSIGNED, OR ANY OTHER PERSON NOT A PARTY TO THIS AGREEMENT, WILL BE CONSIDERED A THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY TO THIS AGREEMENT AND THAT NO SUCH PERSON WILL BE ABLE TO ENFORCE AGAINST THE COMPANY ANY REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES, IF ANY, MADE HEREIN OR BY THE UNDERSIGNED TO SUCH PATIENT.
Of course, this and any other contract is intended as a deterrent in the event of a disagreement. The problem is, any attorney who senses the laboratory may have deep pockets can litigate as a nuisance, in the hopes of a pay and quit offer. Never the less, it’s irresponsible to not have a written contract before beginning any work with a dentist (or another lab for that matter).
Unless he was doing work outside the scope of a dental technician, such as removing temporaries or practicing anything else that might involve wet fingers, I predict the case is thrown out. This is really a product liability case, not malpractice. But I feel for him and the expense of fighting this silly nonsense.
Unfortunately, that’s just the cost of doing business, especially at his level.
