Catherine Henry Lawyers’ Health Law team successfully resolved a damages claim for a client who sued for clinically inappropriate cosmetic dental work.
Our client wanted to improve her smile
Our client saw a newspaper advertisement offering a treatment that would be able to improve the appearance of her teeth. Working in the health and beauty industry required her to be well presented and well-groomed; appearance was an important aspect of her work. She was attracted to the promise of a better smile.
Poor cosmetic dental treatment
Our client did have a prior history of dental problems, having undergone previous tooth extractions, restorations (fillings) and the provision of upper and lower partial dentures. She did not suffer from dental pain nor bad breath at the time when she first consulted with the dental surgeon.
The surgeon provided our client with a crown, bridgework and an upper partial denture over a four-month period. At no stage did he perform or encourage our client to undergo periodontal treatment prior to undertaking his work.
Our client returned to undergo a repair/replacement of the composite build-up on two teeth, even though the build-ups had been placed only two months earlier. The “repaired” build-ups failed again less than two weeks later.
Whilst travelling for work in the UK our client consulted with a dentist due to increasing toothache. The dentist told her that the cosmetic work she had done was preventing her from adequately cleaning her teeth which explained her ongoing periodontal problems.
Our client’s periodontal disease continued to progress. She confronted the surgeon about the poor dental work he had performed. An x-ray revealed she had bone loss and periodontal abscess at one tooth.
She was eventually referred to the Charles Stuart University Dental and Oral Health Clinic where she underwent the extraction of her remaining upper teeth and two lower teeth because of periodontal disease.
She continues to suffer continuous pain in her mouth and gums and the prognosis for her remaining teeth remains extremely poor.
Our case for justice and compensation
Our Health Law team argued that the dental surgeon performed the dental work negligently resulting in the development of abscesses, infection, constant pain and discomfort, bad breath, poor-fitting dentures and psychological injury.
We used expert evidence from a Dental Surgeon and Specialist Prosthodontist which supported the issues of both breach and causation. Those experts found the surgeon
- failed to take an adequate history
- commenced treatment with no periodontal treatment, no written treatment plan, no articulated study models, and no assessment of the suitability of our client’s teeth for crowning
- did not offer alternate treatment options or referral
- did not prepare the teeth (molar abutment) correctly
- failed to have regard or any proper regard to periodontal care and prosthodontics
- inappropriately embarked on invasive, irreversible, and expensive treatment when “alternate, more suitable and less destructive options” were available
- inappropriately designed the bridge
- failed to adequately diagnose and provide our client with the necessary treatment for her periodontal problems as well as providing her with inappropriate and poor-quality prosthodontic treatment.
One of our experts calculated the rate at which our client’s periodontal disease progressed (noting that she did not present with any painful symptoms at the initial consultation) to conclude that the rate of bone loss at the sites where the dental surgeon provided no treatment was significantly less than the bone loss progression in the areas where he had performed his work, accelerating the periodontal breakdown.
The surgeon countered with expert reports to argue our client was a “periodontally susceptible patient”. We argued this was another reason he ought to have delayed work on our client’s teeth until appropriate periodontal treatment had been undertaken.
The surgeon’s expert was critical of our client’s failure to undergo periodontal treatment despite the alleged “advice” provided to her. But there was no evidence in the surgeon’s records of any other “advice” provided beyond a note which indicated only that he told our client that she had a “gum problem” and that she would need to maintain good oral hygiene.
We also provided reports, including from a forensic accountant and psychiatrist, to substantiate our claim for both economic and non-economic loss.
Favourable decision for our client
What was the outcome? We obtained significant damages through mediation, before going to Court, for
- non-economic loss
- past, out of pocket, expenses
- future, out of pocket, expenses.
Let us fight for you or your loved one
Taking legal action can also help change health care practices and hold health care professionals to account so other people do not have to experience what you went through.
If you or a loved one have experienced poor quality dental surgery, do not hesitate to talk to one of our caring, expert, health lawyers about the options available to you. Simply call 1800 874 949 or fill in the form below, and we will be in touch.
