dentist, do I have a case

welshdent

Your sticking point is going to be who takes responsibility hence why I think you are going after the wrong person. No matter how it looks the practice did not fit the bridge. The dentist did. A non clinical member of staff is in no way capable of making a clinical
Judgement. Find out who the original dentist is because even if I worked for the practice I would not be placing that bridge on you. The manager would have no way of knowing if the other teeth were capable of supporting a bridge. I know you view it like using a garage but dentistry is nothing like that because it is managing the human body. Often failures are nothing at all to do with the dentist. Root fractures can sometimes be impossible to see. A smart defence lawyer for the indemnity company could quickly turn it around against you because they will argue the people you are seeking damages from are
Completely un connected to your case. As said before, we are all independent

welshdent

Also 5 years on it quite possible that your other teeth are not capable of supporting a bridge. So the practice can find someone to say they do not feel a bridge is appropriate for you anyway

brook2jack

It is also in this companies interests to fight this very hard. If they were a large corporate dental company the financial implications of taking responsibility for associate dentists would be horrendous .

it would have massive implications re dentists self employed status and hence massive costs for the company, not only now liable for independant practitioners clinical decisions but also bringing into question self employed status and hence huge tax implications.

Really the only person who may bear liability is the original dentist and since they never admitted fault and dentists can and often do disagree this is something you would need advice on to Persue.

kes123

I do know the name of the original dentist, but I still don't see she is the one to go for. No verbal or written agreement ever took place between me and the dentist. The Dentist was actually owned by a Dr Arjang Kham. he is the one who I had the meeting with and was the person who I entered into the verbal and written agreement. he signed my records agreeing to replace the bridge for free. As I said we discussed at length that i would make do with what I had for as long as possible because of all the trauma it would put me through. He didn't say 1 year, 3 years he agreed as and when.

There was never any mention of doing it for goodwill, only that they would do it because it should never have been done in the first place.
Also no where in the letter they wrote to me did it mention anything to do with the fact that it was not there responsibility, it was the actual dentist's.
They just state (In my opinion the dentist may have fitted a bridge that was less than ideal).
Well actually its not in my opinion as I am not a dentist, it was in there opinion.
As I said I will pursue it through court win or loose

kes123

There is also here I think a question of honouring your word.
A dentist who is a Dr should always be a true professional and there should never really be a time when that professionalism and the trust that a patient puts in him/her should ever come into question.

If a Dr tells a patient that he will do something then surely it should be done and i don't personally think that any person who is not true to there word should ever carry the high esteem of being called a DR. Lets face it if we can't trust a dr then who can we trust.

welshdent

Honouring ones word by all means but you are not asking that individual to honour their word you are expecting someone else to do it. The original treatment is absolutely the responsibility of the original dentist and that is the fundamental aspect of dentistry when it comes to law IMHO. If you were treated inappropriately no single other person is responsible for that

brook2jack

It doesn't matter that it was not written in the notes it is a principle of law, one dentist is not responsible for another dentists acts or omissions.

The practice had absolutely no legal responsibility to replace the bridge or even to make a completely different bridge and take the root out free of charge. They offered as a good will gesture. it may not say that in the notes but legally they were under no obligation.

One may question how long a good will gesture should be left... you chose not to take them up on the offer at that time , subsequent to that the dentist who agreed to do the treatment left. Six years on the condition of your other teeth may have deteriorated, they may not be suitable for a bridge and certainly if you have other gaps in your mouth (you mentioned trying a denture in the past) a bridge may well be the last thing that is needed. That is all clinical opinion which may well differ from dentist to dentist.

I would say most people in your situation would not leave it so long to get remedial treatment and it is difficult to argue about the loss of teeth when there was an easily obtainable solution yet you chose for years to keep wedging the bridge in .

You are trying to penalise the practice who tried to act honourably at the time and provide you with an alternative, an alternative that 5 years on may not be appropriate and will leave the dentist who does it liable for any problems from a treatment plan 5 years old. You chose not to go ahead at the time or even for years after. Whether or not you understood at the time, the practice had no legal responsibility and could have told you there and then to persue the original dentist. They didn't and tried to do the best for you. However it may not be reasonable to have seen this as an open ended "cheque " that could be cashed at any time in the future.

RobertoMoir

Looking at your original "Do I have a case" question and your further statements to the attempts of others to help you, I have to ask if you really want to know the validity of your case or if you just want someone to pat you on the shoulder and tell you that you're definitely in the right.

Leaving aside the issues raised here by the dentists who have replied to you, there's the fact that you left it for 5 years to get the agreed work done. I think you will have trouble demonstrating that this is a reasonable length of time to leave things. An offer to remedy poor work like you had should be a way to fix things so that both parties can move on, not a sword of Damocles hanging above the heads of anyone working in the office concerned.

If your medical circumstances have changed so that the originally agreed treatment is no longer suitable for you then where would you go from here?

kes123

can I take it that the people answering me are actually dentists, because all you keep going on about is me trying to punish one dentist for another dentists work.

Any healthcare group who employs or allows self employed dentists to work for them and allow that dentist to use its name and equipment have to take responsibility when the dentist cocks up. they are after all the people who employ or allow to work self employed for them.

As I keep saying the Dr who agreed to replace the bridge did not offer as good will, he offered because it was the responsibility of the dental practice.
As i also keep saying, no time limit was put upon it and wether he replaced it 5 years ago or last week it would all of amounted to the same thing.
As i have said on many occassions. this practice made a verbal and written contract to replace the bridge as and when. the person who made this contract is still there, and by now not replacing it is acting in away that dishonours himself and the practice.
To me he is just a liar, and I will proove this in court, they can then decide.
There is such a thing as contract law. I made a contract with a person. this person will now not honour this.
Simple as that really

brook2jack

No it isn't. The law is that a practice does not have responsibility for a dentists work. That is why individual dentists have to take out individual professional liability insurance for themselves.The practice owners indemnity only covers their employees ie the dental nurses, receptionists and possibly hygienists /therapists ,although the majority of these are self employed.

The definition of self employed is that you take responsibility for your own acts and omissions.

So the practice does not idemnify the dentists working there, each dentist carries their own professional idemnity insurance . The following excerpt explains the legal situation between a dentist who works in a practice (associate) and someone who owns the practice (principal) .

"Associateships


An associate relationship is a financial arrangement between two dentists of equal professional responsibility.

There are a variety of agreements made between associates and principals but usually the owner provides the associate with patients, surgery premises, equipment and materials, staff and facilities. The associate pays for these services (usually by means of a proportion of gross fees at the end of the month) commonly; the practice owner will split lab bills, hygienist costs and sometimes bad debts, at the end of the month. The contract can usually be terminated by either party giving three months notice. Sometimes, there may be a 'binding out' clause in the associate contract, if so; the associate may be bound out of practicing again within a designated geographical radius for a period of time.

The associate has full clinical responsibility for their own work. They have their own contract with the local PCT to provide NHS treatment and, like all dentists, are registered with the GDC they are therefore personally accountable to complaints made to the PCT or to the GDC.

There are a variety of ways of dividing the 'gross fees'. Some arrangements have a fixed percentage, others a set monthly fee and some a sliding scale.

The gross fees are usually paid directly to the practice owner under a system called fee assignment. The practice owner must then calculate all expenses, divide the fees and pay the associate.

Advantage of this arrangement to practice owner is that he is not responsible for the associate's patient care or clinical competence. He is also does not have employment law responsibility to the associate.

The associate benefits from the tax benefits of being self-employed but has a long period of notice (3 months) to the patients and the PCT. He is also not protected under employment law and does not receive sick or holiday pay.

The associate is responsible for hiring a locum if one is required and must personally bear any agency fees"