Dental Injury Compensation Claim

Document No. AM0200672

Judith Edwards V Lee-Kong Choong (2004)

Out of Court Settlement 5/10/2004

The claimant, a 49-year-old woman, received £11,250 for the unnecessary loss of her UR6, UL6 and LL5 teeth. The claimant required extensive remedial treatment including bridges and root canal treatment.

Claimant: Female: 42 years old at date of accident; 49 years old at date of settlement.
Clinical Negligence: Between 1994 and 2001, the claimant received regular dental treatment from the defendant. During treatment, the defendant root treated the claimant's UR6 and UL6 teeth.

The root filling in the claimant's UR6 extruded through the apex of her palatal root. The filling in her mesio-buccal root was short of the apex whilst the third root canal was devoid of any root filling material. The defendant had also used "SPAD" root filling material in the UR6, a known irritant substance which extruded into the periapical tissue of the claimant's tooth. Additionally, the claimant's crown was bulbous with a distal margin deficit and a post which was too short. The prognosis for the UR6 was extremely poor and it required extracting.

The claimant's UL6 root filling had similar problems and the crown that was placed had defective margins and debonded multiple times. The defendant extracted the claimant's UL6 in March 2000 and advised her to have a bridge to replace the UL6 using the UL5 and the UL7 as abutments. The defendant fitted the bridge, although there was inadequate retention and poor fit.

The defendant root filled the claimant's LL5 in November 2000, but the root filling was short of the apex. In July 2001, the defendant removed the root filling in the claimant's LL5. The re-root filled the claimant's LL5 but this proved inadequate. The defendant then extracted the claimant's LL5. The claimant was not advised of any alternative treatment options in relation to the LL5.

The claimant was then advised that the gap due to the extraction of LL5 could be restored with a "Maryland" bridge. However the LL4 and LL7 were heavily restored and not suitable for use as abutments. The bridge became loose and fell off on two further occasions

The claimant brought an action against the defendant alleging that he was negligent in the dental treatment he performed.

Liability disputed.

Injuries: The claimant suffered the loss of her UR6, UL6 and LL5 teeth as a result of her dental treatment.

Effects: During the six years of treatment, the claimant suffered from avoidable pain and suffering. She required bridges in her upper right and left quadrants to replace the missing teeth and specialist endodontic treatment.

Prognosis:After losing three teeth the claimant's dental conditional was stabilised as result of the restorative treatment she received, enabling her to maintain a healthy dentition.
Out of Court Settlement: £11,250 total damages.

Body Part: Mouth - Face - Jaws - Tooth - Teeth
Condition: Root Canal Treatment - Pain - Bridges - Mesio-Buccal Root - Root Filling - Periapical Tissue - Crown - Distal Margin Deficit

The Dental Law Partnership for the Claimant. Berrymans Lace Mawer for the Defendant.
LTLPI 3/11/2004 (Unreported elsewhere)