When you entrust a dental professional with the creation of dentures, you expect a functional device that improves your quality of life. Unfortunately, for many patients, the reality is pain, discomfort, and a feeling of being ignored.
I recently acted for a client who suffered significant distress due to negligent denture treatment. This case highlights how a proactive legal strategy can overcome delays and denials to secure a fair settlement without the need for Court proceedings.
The Case: Pain, Distress, and Misinformation
Our client visited their dentist expecting a standard procedure but was left with severe issues:
-
Inadequate Dentures: Despite two separate attempts, the dentist failed to provide dentures that fitted properly. The first set was so poorly constructed it caused physical injury and ulceration to the mouth. The second set was completely unusable.
-
False Diagnosis: Perhaps most distressing was the dentist’s attempt to avoid fitting the denture by informing the client he had gum disease. Our investigations revealed this was factually incorrect—the client did not have gum disease.
The result was not just financial loss, but significant physical pain, anxiety, and emotional distress.
The Legal Battle: Overcoming Delays and Denial
Upon receiving instructions, I immediately began investigations into Breach of Duty (the dentist’s failure to meet standards) and Causation (proving the dentist caused the injury).
The road to settlement was not smooth. The Defendant’s representatives (the Medical Defence Organisation or MDO) employed several tactics that often discourage unrepresented claimants:
-
Administrative Delays: Complications arose regarding the dentist’s indemnity cover, involving two separate MDOs, which delayed the initial response.
-
Total Denial: When a Letter of Response was finally received in April 2025, the Defendant denied all liability. They argued that ulcers were “not unusual” and denied the failure to diagnose gum disease.
-
Pressure to Withdraw: They explicitly invited our client to withdraw the claim entirely, offering £0.
The Strategy: Persistence Pays Off
We did not accept their denial. My goal for every client is to settle claims efficiently prior to the issue of Court proceedings, but this requires demonstrating that we are ready to escalate if ignored.
-
Challenging the Narrative: We advanced a detailed challenge to their Letter of Response, dissecting their arguments regarding the “gum disease” and the poor fit of the prosthetics.
-
Applying Pressure: When the Defendant failed to engage with our counter-arguments, I issued strict reminders regarding “proportionality”—reminding them that their delays were driving up costs.
-
Threat of Expert Evidence: We made it clear that we were prepared to obtain independent expert evidence to prove negligence.
The Result
Faced with our persistence and the risk of escalating costs, the Defendant’s stance shifted dramatically.
-
June 2025: They moved from offering £0 to offering £1,500.
-
Our Counter: We rejected this low offer and highlighted the strength of our case again.
-
September 2025: The Defendant increased their offer to £3,500.
After careful consideration of the litigation risks and the benefit of bringing the matter to a close without the stress of a trial, the client elected to accept the £3,500 settlement.
Why This Matters
This case demonstrates that a “Letter of Denial” from a dentist does not mean the end of your claim.
Dental negligence cases can be complex, especially when insurers or MDOs attempt to delay or deny valid claims. By having a specialist solicitor on your side, you can challenge these denials, navigate the complex indemnity issues, and secure the compensation you deserve—all while striving to keep the matter out of the courtroom.
Have you suffered from poor dental treatment?
If you have been left in pain due to ill-fitting dentures, or if you feel your dentist has dismissed your concerns, you may be entitled to compensation. I act for Claimants across the UK to help them secure justice.
Contact me today for a preliminary discussion about your case.