Please click on the titles to read the following case reports:
M v Oxford Radcliffe Hospitals NHS Trust
M v M
MF v RO (2010)
V E v Mr R W G (2008)
L v Vivien Anne Pearson BDS
S v Dr Raymond Kaplan
Terence Sidney Bond v Venables Preller (2002)
Rendell v Lumley (2005)
Dunn v Chiverton (2003)
T v Adrian Gerald Lindon (2004)
M v Oxford Radcliffe Hospitals NHS Trust
Ms M, aged 20, went to the Defendant Hospital Trust to have her wisdom tooth extracted under general anaesthetic. The junior doctor undertaking the procedure took out the wrong (adjacent) tooth. As a result, Ms M required a prosthetic implant. Consideration was given to the fact that the implant would probably need replacing approximately 5 times during Ms M’s lifetime.
No proceedings issued and liability was admitted. Matter settled for £10,500.00.
This case was handled by Richard Coleman.
Mrs M had private dental treatment known as a dental facelift. This is a cosmetic procedure that involves a number of dental visits where the jaw is widened (thereby lifting the cheekbones. This requires the insertion of built up dentures. Mrs M had previously had a total dental clearance at a young age.
At the last dental visit the final denture was not a correct fit and during manoeuvring the denture in and out of Mrs M’s mouth we alleged that the Defendant used excessive force and inappropriate manoeuvres. As a result of the manoeuvring there was damage to the temporomandibular joints (“TMJ”). As a result Mrs M suffered pain on eating, smiling and any general movement of the jaw. Proceedings were issued but the matter settled soon after. Damages agreed at £8,000.00. Consideration was given to the fact that Mrs M had a separate and unrelated problem that was also causing her some pain and therefore there were difficulties with issues of causation and to what extent the alleged negligent treatment was causing the pain.
This case was handled by Richard Coleman. It was a difficult case as the treatment offered was very novel in this country and getting an expert who could comment with authority was difficult.
Withy King acted for MF, who received £60,000 damages following the negligent fitting of upper and lower dental bridges between December 2004 and June 2008. As a result of the Defendant’s negligence M suffered a failure of the implants and bridgework in her lower right jaw and a complete failure of the upper bridgework requiring extensive restorative treatment.
Please click here to read the full report
Please click here to view the full case report.
L v Vivien Anne Pearson BDS (2007)
The Claimant, a 36 year old woman, received £5,000.00 as a result of negligent dental treatment when between July 2003 and April 2004 L consulted Mrs Pearson, a General Dental Practitioner on six occasions. L, who was visually handicapped and learning disabled, alleged that the standard of treatment she received was inadequate.
L obtained a supportive medical report from Dr Anthony Halperin, Dental Surgeon, dated 21 September 2005. He agreed that Mrs Pearson’s treatment of the Claimant was negligent in that she failed properly to identify and treat advanced decay in her upper left first molar and upper right second molar, in consequence of which each of these teeth had to be extracted.
An x-ray taken on 6 April 2004 revealed substantial caries under the upper left first molar and examination of the Claimant by a dental nurse at another practice on 16 September 2004 revealed active and rapidly progressing caries in her upper right second molar.
Please click here to read the full case report.
On 28 May 2004 the Claimant attended upon the Defendant seeking long term treatment to improve his cosmetic appearance and fix the space between his teeth in the lower left corner of his mouth. The Defendant advised the Claimant that an implant or a bridge were the options available to him and the Claimant opted for an implant which was fitted on 21 July 2005.
Unfortunately, the implant came out at an angle sticking out at the side of the gum near to the Claimant’s tongue. There was an extra piece of artificial material on the side of the gum attaching the implant to the artificial tooth which was rough and uncomfortable. The Defendant then advised the Claimant that he had to insert the post at that angle due to previous bone loss.
By October 2005 the Claimant could no longer eat or chew on the left side of the mouth. The Defendant told him that it was simply an occlusal problem, but things did not improve and the Claimant saw the Defendant again on 9 January 2006. The Defendant indicated that all he could do was take off the artificial tooth and install a bridge from LL5 to LL7 on top of the implant. A bridge was subsequently fitted on 30 January 2006.
Please click here to read the full case report.
Terence Sidney Bond v Venables Preller (2002)
Claimant:
Male: Between 35 and 55 years old during dental treatment; 58 years old at date of settlement.
Clinical Negligence:
Between 1978 and 1998, the claimant (B) attended the dental surgery of the defendant (P) on a regular six-monthly basis. Over the years, P carried out 14 fillings, 5 crowns and 3 extractions, but there was only one record of a scale and polish in 10 years.
B last visited P on October 6, 1998 in respect of a lost filling, which P replaced. No other defects in B's dentition were noted at the time.
In May 1999, B visited a new dentist who confirmed the presence of extensive decay requiring an intensive treatment plan and orthodontics.
Click here to view the full case report.
Rendell v Lumley (2005)
Out of Court Settlement 26/7/2005
The claimant, a 41-year-old woman, received £10,000 for the substandard root canal treatment received between 1991 and 2002. The claimant suffered a recurrent periapical infection and lost four teeth.
Claimant: Female: 28 years old at date of accident; 41 years old at date of settlement.
Click here to view the full case report.
Dunn v Chiverton (2003)
Out of Court Settlement 9/9/2003
The claimant, a 56-year-old man, received £25,000 for the tooth decay and disease following negligent dental treatment in March 2000. The claimant suffered from poor marginal integrity and marginal bone loss following the treatment.
Claimant: Male: 52 years old at date of accident; 56 years old at date of settlement.
Click here to view the full case report.
T v Adrian Gerald Lindon (2004)
Out of Court Settlement 4/3/2004
The claimant, a 34-year-old woman, received £25,000 for the jaw pain, irreversible pulpitis and temporary mandibular joint disfunction suffered following dental work carried out in 1999. The claimant required extensive remedial treatment, including root canal treatments and replacement fillings.
Claimant: Female: 29 years old at date of accident; 34 years old at date of settlement.
Click here to view the full case report.
