|
|
|
| H v CARR (2005) | |
| Out of Court Settlement 13/4/2005 | |
| The claimant, a 64-year-old man, received £4,250 for the loss of his UL3 tooth and for the failure to diagnose and treat secondary decay to four posterior teeth following dental treatment carried out between 1997 and 2004. | |
| Claimant: Male: 56 years old at date of accident; 64 years old at date of settlement. | |
| Clinical Negligence: Between 1997 and 2004, the claimant regularly attended the
defendant dentist as he suffered from frequent dental pain which included swelling in his upper right quadrant and pain in
his lower left quadrant. Extensive dental work was carried out by the defendant on various occasions which included the extraction
of the claimant’s UR6 and UL7, restoration of LL5, LL6, UL1, UR7, UL7, UR7, LR2, LR5 and LR8 and further repeat crowns
and restorations. The defendant did not always take radiographs. In particular, no radiographs were taken when the claimant first reported pain symptoms in his lower left quadrant in March 1988. In addition, the radiographs taken of the claimant’s LL5 and LL6 in February 1999, upper anterior teeth in November 1999 and LR6 in November 2000, indicated the presence of secondary caries and a periapical area under LL5 and LL6, however these findings were not recorded in the defendant’s clinical notes. In June 2000, the defendant root treated the claimant’s UL3, however in January 2001, the tooth fractured and had to be extracted. In June 2004, the claimant sought a second opinion from another dentist who confirmed that root canal treatment was required to the claimant’s UR7, UR3, UL5, LL5, LL6 and LR5 due to the presence of secondary caries. LR6 also needed to be crowned. The claimant brought an action against the defendant alleging that he failed to: (i) take adequate radiographs in relation to angulation and routine radiographs to monitor the claimant’s oral health; (ii) make contemporaneous notes including radiographic findings; (iii) diagnose and treat secondary caries to UL5, LL5, LR6 and LL6; and (iv) employ a suitable endodontic technique when root treating the UL3, the root filling being poorly condensed and short of the apex of the tooth. Liability admitted. | |
| Injuries: | The claimant suffered the loss of his UL3 and pain from the secondary caries in UL5, LL5, LR6 and LL6, which had been left untreated. |
| Effects: | The claimant suffered pain from secondary decay to his UL5, LL5, LR6, LL6 and pain following
root treatment to his UL3. Prognosis: The claimant would require an extensive course of restorative treatment to his UR7, UR3, UL5, LL6, LL5, LR5 and LR6. |
| Out of Court Settlement: £4,250 total damages. Breakdown of General Damages: Pain, suffering and loss of amenity: £3,985. Special damages: £265 | |
Enter content here
|
PI+ Solicitors is a specialist firm dealing only in dental negligence claims against dentists and
is regulated by The Law Society
|