dentist, do I have a case

kes123

Hi everyone.
Its a long story but here goes.

in 2006 I had a bridge which consisted of 2 teeth.

A few months later the bridge fell out. i went back to the dentist to have it re-cemented and the dentist told me that it will keep falling out because the root is fractured and the bridge should never have been fitted in the first place. I asked my options and was told to come in for a meeting with the practice manager and a second opinion.
So the bridge was re-cemented and I arranged an appointment with the practice manager.
He confirmed it was a problem with the root and that it should never have been fitted and that they would replace for free.

The only problem was that to do this it would now mean having a four tooth bridge and having the root removed.

This would mean that there would be a period of time while the root that was removed healed.

I work in sales and the thought of teeth missing that could be seen when smiling was a horrible thought.

So we agreed that i would make do with the bridge that I had until the point came when it could no longer be cemented in.

A note was then placed on my record to state this.

Anyway a few months later it became loose again, even fell out, but I learned to cope by pusing it back in again and I stopped eating on that side of my mouth.

time went by until 2009 when It wouldn't stay in at all, and so back to the dentist, re-cementing and i said it was now time to have the bridge replaced.
Problem though, new practice manager, new dentist and digtal records so the note had gone.
So I went through the process of trying to get my paper records, again the tooth was re-cemented, but they wanted money for the paper records. I was now unemployed and so could not afford it.

Eventually 2011 the bridge stopped fitting and so now 2 teeth are missing so I pursued the paper records and sure enough there was the record of the dental practice saying it would be replaced. So thats that I thought.
I then got a letter from head office saying that they would not now replace it because of the time period, even though they admitted it was there fault.
Do I have a case, I am pursueing this through small claims court

brook2jack

No you have no case against a new dentist who did not fit the bridge or the company who runs the surgery.

Dentists are independent workers and even though the dentist is working in the same building they are not connected to and have no liability for another dentists work.

You are asking a completely different dentist to make a massive financial hit for another dentists decision.

Even if it is the same company who own the practice they do not employ dentists , the dentists merely pay a percentage of their profits to the company to pay for practice expenses, the dentist is solely responsible for clinical problems not the company who own the practice.So you have no claim against the company.

The only person you may have a case against is the original dentist who fitted the original bridge. However since it is five years since the fault was noted and you declined to have the bridge at that point I think you may find this difficult, particularly if it was not the original dentist who agreed to make you a new bridge.

kes123

i think I may have missed out an important fact. The dentist who fiited the bridge works for the practice so is employed. This dentist then left that practice and was replaced by another dentist who works for them.
The meeting that took place when it was agreed to replace the bridge was not with the dentist who fitted the bridge that person no longer worked for them. it was the new dentist that spotted the mistake.
So I am not asking for a new dentist to take responsibility for there bad practice. I am asking the practicewho employed them to take the responsibilty as it was agreed and wrote on my dental records.

otherwise you could have a bridge fitted one week, it fall out the next. When you go back that dentist has left and there is nothing you can do.
If this was a dentist who ran his own practice and then he stopped working. Then a new dentist took over then yes I agree, but its not like that.
Otherwise why would they have agreed to do it in the first place

brook2jack

No, I think you are mistaken. The vast vast vast number of dentists are self employed. The only dentists who are employed are those who work in community or hospital practice.

Every other dentist who works in a practice is self employed... it may say on the door " dental company practice" and list dentists but those dentists are not employed, they are self employed and pay the practice a proportion of expenses. Even the big dental companies who own hundreds of practices do not employ a single dentist... they are all self employed and pay to use the practice.

Occaisionally a practice will make a good will gesture when a dentist has just left because most agreements will mean a certain proportion of the dentists earnings are left as a "deposit" for 12 months after they leave to cover the cost of any work that may need redoing. After 12 months that money is refunded to the dentist.

To reiterate your new dentist would have to pay out of their own pocket for your treatment.... they will not be paid a salary by the practice... they pay money to the practice to work there. In general dental practice there is no such thing as an employed dentist.

brook2jack

There is one exception to the above ... foundation year one dentists who are in their first year after qualifying and are in a training place in a training practice are employed for their first year of practice.

welshdent

I agree with brook - you may not THINK you are asking the new dentist to accept responsibilty but that's exactly what you are doing. They would basically have to pay out all the money and more than their nhs contract would pay them to fund a decision that they may well disagree with. Personally I wouldn't ever do a bridge the size of yours. I am not comfortable with doing them and have only done at most 3 units

kes123

2007 i am asked to arrange an appointment with the practice manager to discuss my faulty bridge.
This person makes a verbal agreement with myself to replace the bridge free of charge because a dentist employed by the dental group fits a bridge on a faulty route.
they admit liability and make a written note on my dental records to say so. We agree that when the time is right for me, they will carry out this repair. its not the dentist taking responsibility its the practice. There was no time limit put on this. Its a verbal agreement between myself and the practice manager, backed up by written records. This person still works for this big healthcare group.

I do thankyou all for your thoughts, but. I will take my chances in court because the law is the law and a verbal and written agreement was made between myself and this dental group.

I also totally agree that this bridge is possibly to big, but what choice do I have. Implants which I cannot afford, or false teeth which I once tried and found impossible.

If I loose in court then so be it, but there is a principle here and a man without priciples, well what does that make me. (probably a practice manager working for a dental group).

welshdent

The practice manager has no right to accept any liability as they probably are not a dentist and they do not have their neck on the line should it go wrong again regardless of financial issues. I will not do a treatment that I do not agree with. A non clinical member of staff can not direct a dentist to under take work. The company is not remotely responsibile for anything even if you think they are. The dentist is. If you have any issues honestly I think you need to seek that dentist out and persue them.

welshdent

Also I am not entirely sure what you are going to small claims for? Is it to have the new bridge free of charge? Because if you are you are I am assuming the extraction, preparation of a new tooth and placement of a larger bridge should also be covered? Just trying to establish things

kes123

Im taking them to court for breech of contract. To re-coup the costs of having a new bridge fitted.
I compare it to this. You have a new engine fitted by halfords. A couple of months later it breaks. You take it back and the mechanic sais this engine has been fitted o n a cracked block. So he calls in his manager for a second opinion who agrees and offers to replace it free of charge. He also makes a written note to say that the garage took responsibility for it. Now lets say though the car is still running and because I depend on this car so much I decide to keep running it. And so it is agreed verbally and in writting that I can keep running it until it will never run again.
So I now ask the garage to honour there agreement and fix my car.

They then turn round and say, yes I know that we said we would honour it but we have changed our minds.

Why make agreements if you do not intend to honour them. and if they want to say honour it for 3 years, tell me and put it in writting.
This was not done and there was no such timelimit placed. I could have it done when I wanted, or when it could no longer stay in.

Anyway back to court I intend to sue for the cost of replacing these teeth, also court costs and damages based on the fact they have now left me witout teeth.
Once I get copiesof my records I can plan my action better and then serve papers on them based on thias verbal written report taking full responsibility for the poor fitting bridge.

I really see it as a open and shut type of case and all they have to anser is why they are not now willing to be true to there word. If you sign something under duress then it would bev a difficult case. This was sighned by two top dentists agreeing it was there fault,not mine.If they had just been true to there word then I would have renained with them for all treatment. I now will never go there again and 10 of my friends who go there are all also changing dentist because of the reall poor service.

When its been to court I will let you all know exactly how it went

brook2jack

You really should read the above posts and save yourself money. You are going after the wrong people. Unless the dentist who fitted your bridge was a trainee at the time as part of a vocational training scheme then they were not an employee of the practice , no dentist in general practice is .

In law the company has NO clinical responsibility for that dentists work. Any monies that were witheld from the to remedy defective work will long since been paid back to them.

The only person you MIGHT have a case against is the original dentist.

I know your notes say five years ago ,as a good will gesture, the company offered to get a dentist to remake your bridge, but this would have been at a time when they would have had witholdings from the previous dentist to pay for that. They were NEVER legally liable for that dentists work and I think that as you chose not to take up the option at the time and are now looking five years down the line at having the goodwill gesture done you are on shaky ground.

The practice are not like Halfords , they do not employ dentists they are more like landlords renting out surgeries to dentists. Please read up on associate dentists so you know the legal position they and practice owners have. Ultimately , in law , the dentist themselves is the only person who has responsibility for their work. You had a good will gesture offered at the time and chose not to take it up and now want a different dentist to take the huge financial hit based in another dentists promise ( dental notes are clinical notes relating to a dentists decision they are not a record of a companies promises as it is an individual dentist who writes and takes responsibility for clinical notes). So sorry it is probably an open and shut case but not the type you were expecting.