Dental Claim for fractured instrument following root canal treatment.
K v B (2018)- Out of Court Settlement
Back in 1994, the claimant underwent root canal treatment to LL6. Following that treatment and unbeknown to the claimant, the Defendant dentist had caused a separation of the dental instrument (reamer) within the mesial root.
The Defendant failed to spot that part of the instrument had fractured, failed to diagnose or treat the same and also failed to inform the claimant that a fracture of the dental instrument may have occurred.
The claimant argued that he had suffered many years of pain and infection from the tooth and it was only when he attended his new dentist for an emergency appointment in October 2017 that an x-ray revealed that the root canal treatment was substandard and that a piece of instrument had been retained in the tooth- that that it was this retained instrument that was causing the infections.
The treating dentist was subsequently traced to another practice and a letter of claim was drafted and forwarded onto the dentist’s defence organisation.
The claimant alleged that had the root canal treatment to LL6 back in 1994 been carried out properly and the root adequately filled to the apex, then infection would not have been allowed to develop. It was also argued that had the defendant diagnosed that a separated instrument had occurred then further intervention could have been given at the time and the chances of the fractured instrument being bypassed or removed would have been much higher with less chance of any infection.
The dentists defence organisation supplied a letter of response an argued that the RCT was successful for many years without any problems and that there were only limited appointments when the claimant complained of any pain or infection. The clinical advice received by the defence organisations from their expert was that the bypassing of the fracture file would have left the tooth with similar prospects of success and an offer of £3600 was made.
This offer was accepted by the Claimant and the claim was drawn to a close.