Dental Claim for post perforation following root canal treatment

A v L (July 2018)- Out of Court Settlement -£4250

Back in July 2015, the claimant underwent routine root canal treatment to her UR5.

Following the RCT, the Defendant placed a post ready for a crown into the tooth.  Unbeknown to the Claimant, the Defendant had inserted the post at the wrong angle and perforated the mesial wall of the root of UR5 with the crown post.

The Defendant failed to spot that the post had perforated the root of the tooth and the Claimant suffered with multiple infections as a consequence.  It was only when the Claimant attended another dental practice in September 2017 that radiographs were taken which revealed the post perforation.

A letter of claim was drafted and sent to the Defendant who forwarded the letter to his defence organisation to be dealt with.  The Claimant was advised by her new dentist that that her options for treatment to her UR5 were limited due to the high risk of fracture and infection from the incorrectly positioned crown post.

The allegations of negligence included the following:

  1. Perforated the mesial wall of UR5 with a crown post following RCT in 2015;
  2. Caused the claimant to suffer with infections due to the post perforation in turn causing her pain and suffering from 2015 to date;
  3. Failed to provide the claimant with an adequate root filling;
  4. Failed to provide the claimant with an adequate post crown;
  5. Acted outside his area of expertise;
  6. Failed to take adequate x-rays to check the root filled UR5 following RCT;
  7. Failed to inform the claimant of the post crown perforation through the mesial wall of UR5;
  8. Failed to refer the claimant to an endodontist for further specialist treatment;

The Claimant in relation to causation argued that on the balance of probabilities, following RCT to UR5 had the Defendant inserted the post crown at the correct angle, then this would not have perforated the mesial wall of the UR5 and the problems including pain and suffering from recurrent infections that the claimant was suffering would have been avoided and the tooth would not have to be extracted.

A letter of response was received from the Defence Organisation instructed which included a settlement offer out of Court.

After some negotiations with the Defence Organisation, the Claimant finally accepted the sum of £4250 in settlement of her claim.

?>