Gregory Abrams Davidson Solicitors recover damages for injuries arising as a result of negligent dental care. Our client was experiencing issues with her bridgework and attended for remedial treatment. She was offered and was ultimately subject to treatment that failed and required further restorative dental work. Our Client was not advised of all suitable treatment options and was not advised of the risks and benefits of each option so that she could make an informed decision regarding her treatment.
Facts of Case
Our Client had issues with her bridgework and attended the Defendant’s dental practice for restorative dental work. The Claimant was provided with negligent advice regarding the treatment options available to her.
There were several restorative options, including attempting to restore all the remaining teeth or extract those with poor prognosis and replace them with implant retained restorations or a denture. A bridge was reasonable treatment, but various materials and alternative designs were available in addition to the one provided.
Our Client was not advised of all treatment options, except to extend her existing bridge because this would improve the aesthetics of it. She was not advised of the various risks of and various benefits of different treatment options. The treatment provided offered a less reliable prognosis and a higher chance of failure than other available treatments such as implants or a denture. The result was that the restored teeth were very compromised and the prognosis poorer and the chance of premature failure was high.
Our Client was subject to significant dental treatment that ultimately had to be revised because of the poor prognosis associated with the negligent dentition she had been left with. Following the revision treatment, she was much happier with the appearance and function of her dentition.
Case Progression
We obtained independent dental evidence from a Consultant Dental Surgeon, who confirmed that our client was not advised of all of the available restorative treatment options and their associated risks and benefits, so that she could make an informed decision regarding her treatment. Our expert also indicated that the dentist decided to proceed with a treatment option that was less favourable in terms of outcome, when compared to the other treatment options available.
A Letter of Claim was sent to the Defendant based upon the expert evidence alleging that;
- There was a failure to explain all of the available treatment options to the Claimant.
- There was a failure to explain the benefits and risks of all the available treatment options.
- Incorrectly proceeded with treatment that was not the “best” treatment option in terms of restoring her dentition to its original appearance and function.
- Failed to use face bow registration when preparing the bridgework.
- Placed post crowns on teeth that did not have sufficient remaining tooth structure to allow a reliably retain a crown.
Following receipt of the Letter of Claim and Schedule of Loss the Defendant responded with an offer of settlement. Following negotiations a settlement on behalf of our Client was achieved, without the need to commence Court Proceedings.
Gregory Abrams Davidson Solicitors deal with claims for compensation against hospitals (both NHS and Private), dentists, general practitioners, pharmacists and opticians. We have offices in Liverpool City Centre, Allerton, Garston Village and Golders Green, London. We offer a free initial case assessment and No Win No Fee Funding is available. To enquire contact a member of our Medical Negligence new enquiries team on 0151 733 3353, email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. or complete our online contact form.