Terminology question.

[Saint Abyssal <saint_abyssal@yahoo.com>]

If there's a theropod toothmark on a dinosaur bone and there's no sign of 
healing, but also no compelling reason to believe the bone was marked during 
scavenging, would that toothmark be considered a paleopathology? Would it just 
be assumed out of conservatism to be due to scavenging even in the absence of 
positive evidence for it just because there wasn't any evidence to support the 
idea that the mark was received while the subject was alive? Or, would it fall 
into a grey zone of "we're not sure whether this is a paleopathology or not". 
Basically I'm confused about the exact way that the term paleopathology is used 
when dealing with evidence for damage to bone that one can't be certain whether 
or happened before or after death. Could anyone help me out?

~ Abyssal