The patient visited his dentist complaining of toothache in the lower left quadrant. On clinical and radiographic examination the dentist noted caries in LL7 and restored the tooth. A week later the patient returned to the surgery still complaining of pain. The dentist noted considerable inflammation in the area of LL8, prescribed antibiotics and referred him to a general anaesthetic clinic to have the tooth extracted. The patient had no relief after finishing the course of antibiotics and the dentist prescribed a second, stronger course of antibiotics. Again, these had no effect on the pain and the patient presented as an emergency at his local dental hospital.
The consultant diagnosed acute pulpitis of the filled LL7. He removed the filling, dressed the tooth and referred the patient back to his own dentist. The patient telephoned the practice and was told that no appointment was available for a week. Later the same day he began suffering toothache and was seen as an emergency by another dentist who applied local analgesia and prescribed further antibiotics.
A week later, the patient attended his own dentist. He advised waiting a further week before attempting a permanent restoration. No appointment was available until two weeks later. When the patient attended the surgery he was told that the dentist was not there and that the receptionist had been unable to contact him by telephone to cancel the appointment. He was asked to return the following day. He did so but was slightly delayed in traffic and when he arrived, the dentist had left to do a home visit. The receptionist said the practice would contact him later that day to arrange an alternative appointment. Two weeks later the patient had heard nothing and made a complaint.
Negligence alleged
The patient then alleged negligence and said that the dentist had failed to diagnose acute pulpitis in LL7 following the tooth's restoration and had wrongly diagnosed pericoronitis of LL8 as a result of which he experienced pain, suffering loss of earnings and excessive charges. The patient also alleged that the dentist had neglected his duty of care by failing to contact him to rearrange the missed appointments.
Outcome
Dento-legal advisers at the DDU discussed with the member the possibility that the court might consider him vulnerable to criticism on two counts. First, in his interpretation of the original radiographs: despite the extent of the caries he failed to consider a diagnosis of pulpitis. Second, there were possible shortcomings in practice administration procedures, which had led to the failure to contact the patient. With the dentist's agreement the patient accepted a settlement of £415.
This page was correct at publication on 01/09/2002. Any guidance is intended as general guidance for members only. If you are a member and need specific advice relating to your own circumstances, please contact one of our advisers.