|
|
|
| V v KOTECHA (2005) | |
| Out of Court Settlement 5/4/2005 | |
| The claimant, a 37 year old woman, received £4,000 for substandard placement of a dental implant in October 2003. The claimant suffered pain and social embarrassment due to the poor position of her dental implant. | |
| Claimant: Female: 35 years old at date of treatment; 37 years old at date of settlement. | |
| Clinical Negligence: In October 2003, the claimant visited the defendant following
a referral that was made by her present dentist after problems occurred with her upper left central incisor (UL1) after a
tripping accident as a child. The defendant purported to be an expert in dental implants and extracted the claimant's UL1 in order to place a titanium dental implant. Bone grafting was considered by the defendant but rejected for the use of a chemical bone substitute. The implant was placed into the claimant's jaw, and she returned to the defendant after the implant had integrated into her jawbone. A temporary crown was placed onto the implant, but the implant was not placed in an acceptable position to the claimant. The claimant sustained injury and brought an action against the defendant alleging that he failed to: (i) take heed of the lack of bone prior to the placement of the implant; (ii) properly assess the claimants need for bone grafting; and (iii) place the implant at UL1 to an acceptable angle causing it to protrude both bucally and labially. It was the claimant's case that: (i) the temporary crown was too short; (ii) there was too much of a gap between the UL1 and the UL2; and (iii) the implant was at an "odd" angle and was placed too high into the gum line. Liability admitted after a medical expert was jointly instructed. | |
| Injuries: | The claimant's extraction of her UL1 was replaced with a poorly positioned dental implant. |
| Effects: | The claimant suffered pain and social embarrassment due to the poor position of her implant.
The claimant was employed as a beauty therapy manageress and her appearance was of importance. Prognosis: The claimant would require her UL1 implant to be removed and subsequently replaced in the future. |
| Out of Court Settlement: £4,000 total damages. Breakdown of General damages: Pain, suffering and loss of amenity: £4,000 | |
Enter content here
|
PI+ Solicitors is a specialist firm dealing only in dental negligence claims against dentists and
is regulated by The Law Society
|