 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Dentistry / October 2004Dental malpractice (UK) - Some questions - mostly legal
Have I got a Case? In October 2002, I had a lot of dental work done (to remove/replace old amalgam fillings). It was done to a poor standard and led to more than 6 months of pain and the loss of a tooth (The opinion of The Dentists who redid the work) In order to protect the public etc, I made a complaint against the dentist to the General Dental Council. (In May 2003). The complaint was passed through their screener to their preliminary proceedings committee, who did not reach a decision until nearly a year later - in April 2004, when they decided that the dentist should NOT be summoned to attend an inquiry before their Professional Conduct Committee. They also told me that they had advised her in connection with the matter I raised, and mentioned three points in particular. (*that good practice dictates that full records should always be kept *that prior to treatment x-rays should be taken wherever possible and appropriate *that good communications, both oral and written, should be practised with patients) I am disappointed that the dentist is still out there and probably still doing rushed shoddy work and causing pain. I had hoped she would be barred from practicing. I also feel that she should refund the money I paid her and compensate for over 6 months of pain, and the loss of a tooth etc. I have recently written to her saying I will settle for ?9k. Fortunately a lot of photos were taken during restoration, so I have photos of the work she did, many of them showing the decay left behind hidden under the new fillings, and I also have statements from the Three Dentists who redid her work. Could this be dealt with by The Small Claims Court? Regarding Small Claims I have read that "If your claim is for less than ?5,000, but includes a claim for personal injury, your case will not be allocated to the small claims track unless the amounts claimed in respect of personal injury, disrepair and damages are each no more than ?1,000." - Would the damage to me be classed as "personal injury" and therefore rule out the Small Claims procedure? Would I be likely to find a Solicitor who would pursue the dentist on a no win no fee basis? Are the GDC (General Dental Council) just there to protect dentists? Or would they consider my complaint fairly? Should I appeal? As it is now nearly two years since the work was done, am I approaching - or have I passed - any deadlines for legal action. Do I risk anything by posting the whole story, including links to a web page, photos, letters etc in order to provide a warning to other potential victims who try a google search (as I did) before trusting their teeth to this dentist? > Have I got a Case? > [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > victims who try a google search (as I did) before trusting their teeth to > this dentist? You are asking all the right questions. Best to ask them to a lawyer, though. I would guess things are pretty similar to the states. The one issue you should know is that even if the work looks substandard, it is difficult to prove unless you have pre and postop x-rays (just postop) demonstrating that decay was left. It is very difficult for a dentist looking at a mouth for the first time and even seeing what looks like terrible treatment what the situation was beforehand. The other thing is that in the US, a no-win, no-fee (contingency) case will only be taken if there is a very substantial payoff, since these cases (here anyway) are expensive to bring. If your new dentist is willing to testify to your oral condition shortly after you were treated by the old dentist, this would help, esp. if you are able to obtain pre-op photos and radiographs. Hopefully someone from the UK here will have some information on the size threshold for bringing a liability case. Even though no disciplinary action was brought against the dentist, you should be assured that since your case is now on the record, subsequent complaints will be viewed in a stricter context. Good luck, Steve > I would guess things are pretty similar to the states. > The one issue you should know is that even if the work looks substandard, [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > should be assured that since your case is now on the record, subsequent > complaints will be viewed in a stricter context. Some restorations were put directly on top of pulp exposures. Some directly on caries. Trust me the work was bad! An entire mouth of restorations were done without even one radiograph. And,,,,,,,,, when a lower first pre-molar started hurting, after amalgam replacement with a poorly done composite, she advocated extraction since RCT was evil. The tooth started to hurt because she never excavated the caries on the buccal of this tooth which was obvious from 3 feet away. This lady does not deserve the privilege of treating people's mouths. >>I would guess things are pretty similar to the states. >>The one issue you should know is that even if the work looks substandard, [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > from 3 feet away. This lady does not deserve the privilege of treating > people's mouths. Steve-- Sorry, I did not know you are familiar with this case. If it is so cut and dried, any idea why the regulatory agencies failed to act? Steve  SignatureMark & Steven Bornfeld DDS http://www.dentaltwins.com Brooklyn, NY 718-258-5001 >>>I would guess things are pretty similar to the states. >>>The one issue you should know is that even if the work looks substandard, [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > >Steve I suspect the usual fear of making a decision against one of their own. Andrew had tons of photographic evidence of the teeth with the resin restorations removed and the pulp or the caries palinly visible. He had all the radiographs of her work to show. He had letters from two USA dentists as well. The restorations were less than a year old and the interproximal caries was everywhere. One lower molar had lingual caries which went right through the side of the tooth, to the base of the restoration and into the pulp. Would you beleive this tooth was creating constant severe pain? Or, that the lady dentist claimed there was nothing wrong with this tooth? . ---Steve--- >I suspect the usual fear of making a decision against one of their >own. Andrew had tons of photographic evidence of the teeth with the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >tooth was creating constant severe pain? Or, that the lady dentist >claimed there was nothing wrong with this tooth? . SAME ANDREW???? I was wondering about the coincidence ..... JOEL >I suspect the usual fear of making a decision against one of their >own. Andrew had tons of photographic evidence of the teeth with the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >tooth was creating constant severe pain? Or, that the lady dentist >claimed there was nothing wrong with this tooth? . Not to be argumentative, but .... well, nevermind. Joel >I suspect the usual fear of making a decision against one of their >own. Andrew had tons of photographic evidence of the teeth with the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >tooth was creating constant severe pain? Or, that the lady dentist >claimed there was nothing wrong with this tooth? . Jeez the whole thing swings on standard of care IN THAT LOCALE. Now was andrew some kind of NHS patient at the time or did Andrew consult a qualified fee-for-service dentist? Etc. >>I suspect the usual fear of making a decision against one of their >>own. Andrew had tons of photographic evidence of the teeth with the [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >Etc. FFS not NHS >Jeez the whole thing swings on standard of care IN THAT LOCALE. > >Now was andrew some kind of NHS patient at the time or did Andrew >consult a qualified fee-for-service dentist? > >Etc. Private dentist, ie. fee-for-service... And he paid a bundle not to mention airfare to the US. -- W_B Take out the G'RBAGE wubbabubbazG@RBAGEyahoo.com > I suspect the usual fear of making a decision against one of their > own. Andrew had tons of photographic evidence of the teeth with the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > ---Steve--- Far be it from me to doubt you! Steve SignatureMark & Steven Bornfeld DDS http://www.dentaltwins.com Brooklyn, NY 718-258-5001 >> I suspect the usual fear of making a decision against one of their >> own. Andrew had tons of photographic evidence of the teeth with the [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >Steve I saw it too, was horrible. -- W_B Take out the G'RBAGE wubbabubbazG@RBAGEyahoo.com >> I would guess things are pretty similar to the states. >> The one issue you should know is that even if the work looks substandard, [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >from 3 feet away. This lady does not deserve the privilege of treating >people's mouths. Don't think that I would have state the case as nicely as you Dr. SM -- W_B Take out the G'RBAGE wubbabubbazG@RBAGEyahoo.com Sadly, there is a 'plan dentist' in a town near here. Patients get discount dental plans at work, and he is the only dentist (and I hesitate to even use that word) within 30 miles that take the 'insurance'. I had a lady in this week with a draining abcess on a lower second molar (previous amalgams & a stainless steel crown placed a little over a year ago). The infection has been present for over 12 months, was seen twice by the 'plan dentist', and to rub Glyoxide® around the gum. That was it. No root canal. No extraction. No antibiotics. Most of his screw ups stay on the other side of the river, but I get to see enough to turn my stomach. I performed endo in an attempt to save the tooth, but with all of the damage from the long standing infection, I'm not sure if it will be successful. Trouble is, who wants to risk a defamation suit plus the public outrage at attacking a 'beloved, chuch-going, mission participating, civic minded, and obviously a caring dentist (since he accepts such low fees for dentistry)'? Fawks > Some restorations were put directly on top of pulp exposures. Some directly > on caries. Trust me the work was bad! An entire mouth of restorations were [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > from 3 feet away. This lady does not deserve the privilege of treating > people's mouths. Typical for too many of the HMO and PPO plans. Unfortunately, this case in the UK was a mercury is evil and RCT will poison you dental office. She charged whatever she thought she could get away with, as it was NOT an NHS case, it was cash on the spot. I am making a Monodont for a nice lady who did her own research on the internet and found out how evil RCT is. Had an upper premolar removed instead of RCT. You have to love the fact that research done in 1918 can still circulate on the internet, even though is was disproved in 1922. Signature~+--~+--~+--~+--~+-- Stephen Mancuso, D.D.S. Troy, Michigan, USA .................................................... This posting is intended for informational or conversational purposes only. Always seek the opinion of a licensed dental professional before acting on the advice or opinion expressed here. Only a dentist who has examined you in person can diagnose your problems and make decisions which will affect your health. ...................... > > Sadly, there is a 'plan dentist' in a town near here. Patients get [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] >> buccal of this tooth which was obvious from 3 feet away. This lady does >> not deserve the privilege of treating people's mouths. Bad dentistry is sad either way. :-( Fawks > Typical for too many of the HMO and PPO plans. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > instead of RCT. You have to love the fact that research done in 1918 can > still circulate on the internet, even though is was disproved in 1922. >Sadly, there is a 'plan dentist' in a town near here. Patients get >discount dental plans at work, and he is the only dentist (and I [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >ups stay on the other side of the river, but I get to see enough to turn >my stomach. terrible. >I performed endo in an attempt to save the tooth, but with all of the >damage from the long standing infection, I'm not sure if it will be >successful. gawd. how do you like re-doing other peoples crappy work/negligence? not much I don't think. >Trouble is, who wants to risk a defamation suit > plus the public outrage >at attacking a 'beloved, chuch-going, mission participating, civic >minded, and obviously a caring dentist (since he accepts such low fees >for dentistry)'? Yep. >Fawks On the other hand, has he given up the right to a good reputation? >> Some restorations were put directly on top of pulp exposures. Some directly >> on caries. Trust me the work was bad! An entire mouth of restorations were [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> from 3 feet away. This lady does not deserve the privilege of treating >> people's mouths. I would say most certainly. However I am the one who might have his reputation harmed if it looked like I was attacking this other dentist. It could easily be said that I was merely out for personal gain. Fawks > On the other hand, has he given up the right to a good reputation? >I would say most certainly. However I am the one who might have his >reputation harmed if it looked like I was attacking this other dentist. You mean if you pointed out his screw ups to the person? It's only defamation if you are making false statements about him. >It could easily be said that I was merely out for personal gain. Yes, but you are not. This is all in the abstract, hypothetical, not like its gonna happen... but he would have a hard time proving defamation because what you say is true - you are not making false statements. <long story, no need to reply> I once had a dentist tell me that a past dentist had wrecked a tooth, and I very much appreciated the candor... it was true, he was right! Of course the past dentist had already been dead for 20 years. Your situation is different because the guy is alive and practicing across the river. If a dentist tried to tell me this same thing was my fault, because of my eating habits , brushing habits, or whatever fake reason, I would know right away that he was a LIAR. I'd rather know the truth, but thats just me. Dental boards and such, I suppose were created at least in small part to maintain a uniform high standard of care but it either never worked out that way, or things have recently deteriorated with costs going up, lots of cheap plans, and so on. I pay cash for dentistry which I don't need very often, praise God! I can go for many years without, and then when I go they tell me the teeth look alright, clean. About 10 years ago, when I was complaining about a tooth, a friend told me I should get insurance and told me about her great dental plan. I looked it over and just knew this was not for me, because the rates seemed way too good to be true, given costs in our area. I told her I was not going to go for it because its a cheap plan. She kept going to a dentist on this plan. She moved to a different state and now she's got a denture for, I think lower teeth... and she's not that old! That said, the probability might be higher, but spending more does not guarantee good work either! I'm sure there are dentists on the cheap plans who do fine work, but they are just getting started, know how to keep costs down, are conscious of what they are doing, and so on. Cheap, expensive, mid-price, it's caveat emptor! (let the buyer beware). >Fawks > >> On the other hand, has he given up the right to a good reputation? I do it all the time. I like to think that is why they are in my office rather than in the persons that did the work. I am usually happy providing the best I can. One thing I have learnt over the years is that you will never know with any certainty the conditions that existed at the time the work was originally done if someone else was doing the work. Many times I have done a "patch job" to help get someone over a proclaimed hump, with their promises to return to fix things right. My guess is they end up going down the street to con the next person into another patch job, rather than return. SignatureRoy DotSeaEh is .ca | gawd. how do you like re-doing other peoples | crappy work/negligence? not much I don't think. >I do it all the time. I like to think that is why they are in my office >rather than in the persons that did the work. I am usually happy providing >the best I can. Yes, of course, that's good. Normal. >One thing I have learnt over the years is that you will never know with any >certainty the conditions that existed at the time the work was originally >done if someone else was doing the work. Sure, you don't know for sure, but you can estimate. >Many times I have done a "patch job" to help get someone over a proclaimed >hump, with their promises to return to fix things right. My guess is they >end up going down the street to con the next person into another patch job, >rather than return. Yes, there's that. Steve was talking about where the neighboring dentists quality of work was consistently low enough to turn his stomach. The industry does not seem to be able to police itself/protect the public via dental boards, etc. There are little shops of horrors like this existing. http://caag.state.ca.us/newsalerts/2004/04-110.htm >| gawd. how do you like re-doing other peoples >| crappy work/negligence? not much I don't think. >>I do it all the time. I like to think that is why they are in my office >>rather than in the persons that did the work. I am usually happy providing [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Sure, you don't know for sure, but you can estimate. OLD STORY ....... I never criricize when I was not there observing what happened. Too many times, the patient is entirely mistaken ,,, that was three dentists back where the problem originated. Joel >>Many times I have done a "patch job" to help get someone over a proclaimed >>hump, with their promises to return to fix things right. My guess is they [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >>| gawd. how do you like re-doing other peoples >>| crappy work/negligence? not much I don't think. >>>One thing I have learnt over the years is that you will never know with any >>>certainty the conditions that existed at the time the work was originally [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >OLD STORY ....... I never criricize when I was not there observing >what happened. I never cririzice either. >Too many times, the patient is entirely mistaken ,,, that was three >dentists back where the problem originated. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >>>| gawd. how do you like re-doing other peoples >>>| crappy work/negligence? not much I don't think. >>>>One thing I have learnt over the years is that you will never know with any >>>>certainty the conditions that existed at the time the work was originally [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >I never cririzice either. I do not even criticizilize until I am there. >>Too many times, the patient is entirely mistaken ,,, that was three >>dentists back where the problem originated. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >>>>| gawd. how do you like re-doing other peoples >>>>| crappy work/negligence? not much I don't think. >>>>>One thing I have learnt over the years is that you will never know with any >>>>>certainty the conditions that existed at the time the work was originally [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >I do not even criticizilize until I am there. Amen. Roger that. Same here, no criticizilize if not there. Do not even think of it. >>>Too many times, the patient is entirely mistaken ,,, that was three >>>dentists back where the problem originated. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >>>>>| gawd. how do you like re-doing other peoples >>>>>| crappy work/negligence? not much I don't think. >>I do not even criticizilize until I am there. > >Amen. Roger that. >Same here, no criticizilize if not there. How about a simple 'spell check' ? Dorks. -- W_B wubbabubbazG@RBAGEyahoo.com Take out the G'RBAGE >>>I do not even criticizilize until I am there. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Dorks. DEF. A dull stupid fatuous person > >How about a simple 'spell check' ? > > > >Dorks. > > DEF. A dull stupid fatuous person ..... stupid AND fatuous.... jeez... W_B, ya ain't kind, that's fer shure.... SP SignatureNot a real Addy, yet >s.... jeez... W_B, ya ain't kind, that's fer >shure.... >SP am the meanest sob that you ever met. -- W_B wubbabubbazG@RBAGEyahoo.com Take out the G'RBAGE > >s.... jeez... W_B, ya ain't kind, that's fer > >shure.... [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > -- > W_B ...then when we finally meet, it'll be by me Bazooka-ing your airplane outta the sky and then breaking your liver in half.... then we'll shake hands SP SignatureNot a real Addy, yet >> >s.... jeez... W_B, ya ain't kind, that's fer >> >shure.... [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >hands >SP I don't think that you can get that far, weenie. -- W_B wubbabubbazG@RBAGEyahoo.com Take out the G'RBAGE > How about a simple 'spell check' ? > > Dorks. > > -- > W_B Ouch!!!!! My ears were ringing... now I know why! SP SignatureNot a real Addy, yet > Trouble is, who wants to risk a defamation suit plus the public outrage > at attacking a 'beloved, chuch-going, mission participating, civic > minded, and obviously a caring dentist (since he accepts such low fees > for dentistry)' So.... PHONE him!!! Tell him to go and get the training that he so obviously lacks.... This is painfully obvious to YOU but I guarantee you that it is NOT at all abvious to HIM.... You know, that guy could've easily been ME.... Fortunately, I had a patron and a few early situations happen to me that put me squarely back in my place with a good dose of humility and reality-check. I would have welcomed a 'friendly call' from one of the local docs before I hit a couple of difficult cases and a couple of resulting scars.... It ain't for naught that I don't publish my real name here... AT LEAST, if you warn him, you will have done all you can, short of notifying the authorities... A word to the wise; and all that.... BUT, as they also say (y'all being in the Bible Belt would be better able than I to place it in the Good Book): THERE ARE NONE SO BLIND AS THOSE WHO WILL NOT SEE... Jest ah suggust'ion Cheeahs :-( SP SignatureNot a real Addy, yet >> Have I got a Case? >> [quoted text clipped - 77 lines] >Good luck, >Steve Two of the three subsequent treating dentists frequent SMD. -- W_B Take out the G'RBAGE wubbabubbazG@RBAGEyahoo.com >>>Have I got a Case? >>> [quoted text clipped - 85 lines] > Take out the G'RBAGE > wubbabubbazG@RBAGEyahoo.com It hadn't occurred to me that this Andrew was THE Andrew. Steve SignatureMark & Steven Bornfeld DDS http://www.dentaltwins.com Brooklyn, NY 718-258-5001 > > Have I got a Case? > > > > In October 2002, I had a lot of dental work done (to remove/replace old > > amalgam fillings). > > It was done to a poor standard and led to more than 6 months of pain and > > the loss of a tooth (The opinion of The Dentists who redid the work) That's the problem, it's an opinion. If you sue her she'll have another expert give an opposite opinion. > > In order to protect the public etc, I made a complaint against the dentist > > to the General Dental Council. (In May 2003). The complaint was passed [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > *that good communications, both oral and written, should be > > practised with patients) Thet advised her to do these things better, it wasn't a reprimand and it doesn't rise to the level of malpractise. Perhaps a jury will see it differently if it gets that far and is not dismissed outright. > > I am disappointed that the dentist is still out there and probably still > > doing rushed shoddy work and causing pain. I had hoped she would be barred [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Could this be dealt with by The Small Claims Court? Regarding Small Claims I > > have read that "If your claim is for less than ?5,000, but includes a claim > > for personal injury, your case will not be allocated to the small claims > > track unless the amounts claimed in respect of personal injury, disrepair > > and damages are each no more than ?1,000." > > > > - Would the damage to me be classed as "personal injury" and therefore rule > > out the Small Claims procedure? If you go to Small Claims she will most likely have a lawyer and as I understand it you intend to represent yourself so you better be well prepared because the burden of proof is on YOU. Talk to a lawyer and see if you have a case first. > > Would I be likely to find a Solicitor who would pursue the dentist on a no > > win no fee basis? > > > > Are the GDC (General Dental Council) just there to protect dentists? Or > > would they consider my complaint fairly? Should I appeal? They're there to protect their own a.ses. > > As it is now nearly two years since the work was done, am I approaching - or > > have I passed - any deadlines for legal action. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > victims who try a google search (as I did) before trusting their teeth to > > this dentist? > You are asking all the right questions. Best to ask them to a lawyer, > though. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Good luck, > Steve > > > Have I got a Case? > > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > That's the problem, it's an opinion. If you sue her she'll have another > expert give an opposite opinion. But there are photos and xrays and tooth and statements. > Thet advised her to do these things better, it wasn't a reprimand and it > doesn't rise to the level of malpractise. Yes, that was a suprise. > Even though no disciplinary action was brought against the dentist, you > should be assured that since your case is now on the record, subsequent > complaints will be viewed in a stricter context. Yes that is something. >Have I got a Case? > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >(*that good practice dictates that full records should always be >kept TRUE >*that prior to treatment x-rays should be taken wherever possible >and appropriate TRUE >*that good communications, both oral and written, should be >practised with patients) TRUE >I am disappointed that the dentist is still out there and probably still >doing rushed shoddy work and causing pain. I had hoped she would be barred >from practicing. But what if she keeps good records, takes x-rays, and talks nicely to patients? Those were your beefs right? >I also feel that she should refund the money I paid her and compensate for >over 6 months of pain, and the loss of a tooth etc. I have recently written >to her saying I will settle for £9k. So tell us those circumstances ... thsi is all news to me! >Fortunately a lot of photos were taken during restoration, so I have photos >of the work she did, many of them showing the decay left behind hidden under >the new fillings, and I also have statements from the Three Dentists who >redid her work. Let's see .. this is the internet you know. >Could this be dealt with by The Small Claims Court? Regarding Small Claims I >have read that "If your claim is for less than £5,000, but includes a claim [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >- Would the damage to me be classed as "personal injury" and therefore rule >out the Small Claims procedure? Nope. >Would I be likely to find a Solicitor who would pursue the dentist on a no >win no fee basis? Yup, many people solicit .... >Are the GDC (General Dental Council) just there to protect dentists? Probably. > Or >would they consider my complaint fairly? Should I appeal? What happened? STILL I have no idea. >As it is now nearly two years since the work was done, am I approaching - or >have I passed - any deadlines for legal action. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >victims who try a google search (as I did) before trusting their teeth to >this dentist? Nope, you only risk your credibility by NOT posting. BUT do not mention the dentist by name until you have verified that you are correct. Otherwise you wil lget a beautiful libel suit. In England libel is a tough rap. Joel M. Eichen DDS I'd say you would have a better chance of trying to get money from being poisoned by amalgams ~ a rare disease called amalgamitis ....... >>Have I got a Case? >> [quoted text clipped - 87 lines] > >Joel M. Eichen DDS Generally, this is not the place to ask such a question since its mostly dentists here. Is the General Dental Council more interested in protecting dentists than protecting you? Could be. Are there other organizations where you can file the complaint, since it is already written? For the question of whether you have a case in small claims, contact your local courts. To see if you have a case, contact lawyers. But before contacting local courts or lawyers, see what response you get from your letter. If she agrees to refund then you wont need small claims court or a lawyer. It's your decision. I think if this were me, I would wait for the answer to your letter, then, IF you still want to, take both letters to a lawyer, I mean, solicitor, then decide what to do from there. I would be furious, and I would be all over the stodgy, slow, General Dental Council. ;-) <more below> >Have I got a Case? > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >*that good communications, both oral and written, should be >practised with patients) Huh? What about the quality of work? Did they miss the point? They might as well have told her: "*A pleasant speaking voice should always be used whenever answering the phone." >I am disappointed that the dentist is still out there and probably still >doing rushed shoddy work and causing pain. I had hoped she would be barred [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >the new fillings, and I also have statements from the Three Dentists who >redid her work. Sounds like you have a solid claim if three other dentists were willing to provide you with statements. >Could this be dealt with by The Small Claims Court? Regarding Small Claims I >have read that "If your claim is for less than ?5,000, but includes a claim >for personal injury, your case will not be allocated to the small claims >track unless the amounts claimed in respect of personal injury, disrepair >and damages are each no more than ?1,000." I dunno, EACH tooth no more than 1,000? >- Would the damage to me be classed as "personal injury" and therefore rule >out the Small Claims procedure? Your claim is for more than 5,000 rules out small claims, perhaps. >Would I be likely to find a Solicitor who would pursue the dentist on a no >win no fee basis? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >As it is now nearly two years since the work was done, am I approaching - or >have I passed - any deadlines for legal action. Ask local courts. The time may begin at 'date of discovery', when the problems were discovered, not when the work was actually done. >Do I risk anything by posting the whole story, including links to a web >page, photos, letters etc in order to provide a warning to other potential >victims who try a google search (as I did) before trusting their teeth to >this dentist? >Generally, this is not the place to ask such a question >since its mostly dentists here. Two dentist from SMD fixed this mans' teeth at no charge. >Is the General Dental Council more interested in >protecting dentists than protecting you? Could be. [quoted text clipped - 91 lines] >>victims who try a google search (as I did) before trusting their teeth to >>this dentist? -- W_B Take out the G'RBAGE wubbabubbazG@RBAGEyahoo.com >>Generally, this is not the place to ask such a question >>since its mostly dentists here. > >Two dentist from SMD fixed this mans' teeth at no charge. REPLY I heard they did a decent job too! >>Is the General Dental Council more interested in >>protecting dentists than protecting you? Could be. [quoted text clipped - 91 lines] >>>victims who try a google search (as I did) before trusting their teeth to >>>this dentist? >Generally, this is not the place to ask such a question >since its mostly dentists here. >Is the General Dental Council more interested in >protecting dentists than protecting you? YUP > Could be. >Are there other organizations where you can file >the complaint, since it is already written? >For the question of whether you have a case in small >claims, contact your local courts. >To see if you have a case, contact lawyers. >But before contacting local courts or lawyers, see what [quoted text clipped - 85 lines] >>victims who try a google search (as I did) before trusting their teeth to >>this dentist? Having brought the case to the dental council, i.e. following accepted protocol for investigation and resolution, may bear some credence on timelines. SignatureRoy DotSeaEh is .ca | >As it is now nearly two years since the work was done, am I approaching - or | >have I passed - any deadlines for legal action. | | Ask local courts. The time may begin at 'date of | discovery', when the problems were discovered, not when | the work was actually done. >Having brought the case to the dental council, i.e. following accepted >protocol for investigation and resolution, may bear some credence on >timelines. Yes. And hopefully going through the dental council does not preclude further actions. (I think he would know it though, if he made such an agreement). IMO, first choice is to settle with the dentist. >| >As it is now nearly two years since the work was done, am I approaching - >or [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >| discovery', when the problems were discovered, not when >| the work was actually done. > Generally, this is not the place to ask such a question > since its mostly dentists here. > Is the General Dental Council more interested in > protecting dentists than protecting you? Could be. > Are there other organizations where you can file > the complaint, since it is already written? Someone on uk.legal.moderated has suggested that I discuss the GDC's handling of my complaint with the Council for Healthcare Regulatory Excellenceat www.chre.org.uk Any other suggestions? > For the question of whether you have a case in small > claims, contact your local courts. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > to refund then you wont need small claims court or > a lawyer. Maybe she will. I was concerned though that I was running out of time, however I am informed on uk.legal.moderated, that I have three years from the time you knew, or reasonably ought to have known, that the work was defective. > >their Professional Conduct Committee. They also told me that they had > >advised her in connection with the matter I raised, and mentioned three [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > "*A pleasant speaking voice should always be used whenever > answering the phone." LOL! Nicely put and very apt. Yes they completely ignore the main issue - ie shoddy work and failing to save a tooth. >> Generally, this is not the place to ask such a question >> since its mostly dentists here. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >Any other suggestions? I'm not familiar with the different agencies in the UK. uk.legal.moderated looks like a good place for local info and the above agency looks like a good place to file another complaint. >> For the question of whether you have a case in small >> claims, contact your local courts. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >the time you knew, or reasonably ought to have known, that >the work was defective. Okay, so you still have some time. (I was wondering if you had sent the letter certified, and given a deadline to reply, so too much time would not pass.) I think she would be foolish to not settle this with you. >> >their Professional Conduct Committee. They also told me that they had >> >advised her in connection with the matter I raised, and mentioned three [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >Yes they completely ignore the main issue - ie shoddy work and failing to >save a tooth. a-hem. Helloooooo. > >> Huh? > >> What about the quality of work? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > a-hem. Helloooooo. Oops. . . sorry . . . did I nod off?? >> >> Huh? >> >> What about the quality of work? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >Oops. . . sorry . . . did I nod off?? Since two American dentists fixed your problems is it enough to leave well enough alone ? You could always make a web-page but IMNSHO that would be an excercise in futilility.. That is the sum-total of what I'm willing to discuss puiblicly. Contact me privately for further discussion, brother. -- W_B wubbabubbazG@RBAGEyahoo.com Take out the G'RBAGE > Since two American dentists fixed your problems > is it enough to leave well enough alone ? It would be much easier but not right. By the grace of God, Steve and you, I've come out of this much better than expected and I'm terrifically grateful, so leaving well alone is enough for my remaining teeth and the for the amount of time I have, but not enough for my sense of justice and not enough for my missing #21. And of course the other facet is that she continues to operate. How many more victims do you think there have been since Oct 2002? You haven't heard about them, so perhaps you don't care about them, and the GDC apparently don't, but surely there will have been plenty. A third facet is that there are two American dentists who I would like to say thankyou to. Anyway, Have you forgotten that it may have been you who set me off on this route in the first place ? . . . . http://tinyurl.com/6n3ee http://tinyurl.com/63yf3 >> Since two American dentists fixed your problems >> is it enough to leave well enough alone ? [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > http://tinyurl.com/63yf3 My good friend, I will always support your adventures. If you wish to persue this matter, I am right there by your side. Damn sure miss your company, brother. Will get there ASAHP. Carry on, -- W_B wubbabubbazG@RBAGEyahoo.com Take out the G'RBAGE > >> Since two American dentists fixed your problems > >> is it enough to leave well enough alone ? [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > My good friend, I will always support your adventures. > If you wish to persue this matter, I am right there by your side. Thanks > Damn sure miss your company, brother. Yeah it was a good time. > Will get there ASAHP. I look forwards to it. Visitors often comment on how peaceful it is here - so its a good place to relax, walk, or sit by the fire and absorb whisky. >> Damn sure miss your company, brother. > >Yeah it was a good time. Has it really been over a year ? Yep... My, how time flies. -- W_B wubbabubbazG@RBAGEyahoo.com Take out the G'RBAGE >Since two American dentists fixed your problems >is it enough to leave well enough alone ? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Contact me privately for further discussion, brother. That might be like the Bash Larry Rosenthal Website ........ Baddentist.com I believe ..... >Oops. . . sorry . . . did I nod off?? Evidently. -- W_B wubbabubbazG@RBAGEyahoo.com Take out the G'RBAGE >> a-hem. Helloooooo. > >Oops. . . sorry . . . did I nod off?? Not at all. That was for the General Dental Council. > >> a-hem. Helloooooo. > > > >Oops. . . sorry . . . did I nod off?? > > Not at all. That was for the General Dental Council. Oh I see!! Well thanks for your comments. The ball is in their court now as far as compensation goes, and in the meantime I may well pass on your a-hem Helloooo sentiments to the GDC and ask them what they were thinking about. Surely I should at least get an explanation. >> >> a-hem. Helloooooo. >> > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >Helloooo sentiments to the GDC and ask them what they were thinking about. >Surely I should at least get an explanation. I have missed you dearly, my friend. Seems as though the GDC needs a swift kick in the a**. You are just the one to deliver the aforementioned deed. Of course you could always just deliver a fox to her surgery. ;0) Don't forget to advertise. -- W_B wubbabubbazG@RBAGEyahoo.com Take out the G'RBAGE Hello Andrew, Since I practice in the UK, I have to tell you that complaining to the GDC was the right thing to do. However, you must understand that the GDC cannot simply erase a dentist for lifetime based on a single complaint. Such things follow a tiered structure. If the dentist does such a substandard work as you've described, rest assured that there will be further complaints and these will be dealt more severely. From my limited knowledge of dento-legal matters in the UK, I know that taking away one's license is only done for serious professional misconduct. It is standard practice not to confuse misconduct with negligence or malpractice. The situation you have described (as I understand it is carious lesions that haven't been treated rather than caries under the first fillings that wasn't removed, please correct me if I'm wrong) sounds like supervised neglect and would not even remotely be classified as serious misconduct. I know you feel like a great injustice has been done on you and personally I would feel the same thing if I were you, but perhaps you'll feel better if you consider (i) further complaints done by other patients may result in the dentist being removed from the registers (ii) this may actually serve as a "wake-up call" and the lady begins to understand that quick money isn't the most important thing in the world. I've seen this happening (it happened with me, although on a much smaller scale; there was no complaint, lawyers or regulatory bodies involved, it was just guilt that got to me). Now to more practical issues. You say you lost a tooth, had considerable pain and underwent extensive remedial work because of the treatment done (or lack of treatment done). This could justify expenses for an implant paid (provided you meet the requirements for one), expenses for the remedial work as well as compensation for loss of quality of life for these 6 months. I think you might be able to make a claim for it. The 9K pounds you mentioned seems very reasonable for a settlement. You need to start asking around for lawyers specialising on claims, preferrably those specialised on medical and dental cases. A warning though: be very-very careful with the lawyers you end up using. There have been several cases of overcharging and in the end you might win the claim only to get ripped off by the lawyer. Aside from bad dentists, the UK also has many bad lawyers. I wish you the best of luck in your case and hope that this whole thing hasn't shattered your faith in ythe dental profession; some of us are actually quite nive if you get to know us. As for my colleagues posting on this forum, I would like to say that in situations like this it's best not to take it too personally or to ask for blood, since none of us was there when the treatment took place. Keep a cool head guys. My usual reply towards a patient asking me for a second opinion on treatment done by another dentist is "I can tell you what I see right now, bhut you must understand that I wasn't there to witness what took place during the treatment". I believe that this is the best approach for all parties involved. George Hi George, I was the dentist who took apart the work this lady did in the UK. She did composites right on top of pulp exposures with caries still present. She, also, was a firm believer that amalgams will harm everyone (not just the very few who have a true sensitivity), and she was convinced RCT was evil based on research done 80 years ago and disproved 75 years ago. Therefore, every amalgam in this patient's mouth needed to be removed regardless of condition. When he began to have pain from a lower premolar (did I mention that she never excavated the caries from the buccal surface where no amalgam was pre-existing), she would not even remove her MOD composite to see what was underneath it, she just ripped the tooth out of his head. When he developed constant sever pain from a molar (one of the ones with a carious exposure that she left untreated), she insisted there was nothing wrong. Just the lack of compassion from this one act is enough to repulse me. Trust me when I tell you her work is worse than anything I have seen from a developed nation. Also, this patient is probably the easiest patient I have ever worked on. He opens wide, is able to remain open for hours at a time, keeps his tongue still, salivates normally, etc. The only better dental patient is a mannequin. The patient tells me that she performed an entire quadrant of restorations in the time it takes me to do one tooth. She never took radiographs and left interproximal caries everywhere. This is not a case of someone missing this or that. This is a case of drawing the most money out of someone as quickly as possible, then denying anything wrong. The good thing from this, is that at least I met a wonderful person in the UK that is now probably a life-long friend to me and my family. Signature~+--~+--~+--~+--~+-- Stephen Mancuso, D.D.S. Troy, Michigan, USA .................................................... This posting is intended for informational or conversational purposes only. Always seek the opinion of a licensed dental professional before acting on the advice or opinion expressed here. Only a dentist who has examined you in person can diagnose your problems and make decisions which will affect your health. ...................... > Hello Andrew, > [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > > George Steve, Your details have made me seen this case in new light. You say you haven't seen worse work in a developed nation. Trust me, I'm working in the UK for almost a year now and you wouldn't believe the things I've seen. The NHS here has ruined entire generations of dentists, making them work at such a high rate and for such low fes that are unheard of in the rest of the developed world. Many of them have just grown cynical, and even when the patient pays privately for his treatment they tolerate substandard work (even terrible work) just because of the money involved. You see, it's difficult to remain ethical when they pay you 7.5 pounds (about 9-10 dollars) for an occlusal amalgam and 12.6 (14-15 dollars) for an extraction. And when that attitude takes form (growing cynical), it's extremely difficult to crack and soon money doesn't matter; even if you get 1K for a filling you will end up not paying any attention to it. Now, I think you've mentioned that the only reason the amalgams were replaced was that they were amalgams (Jan would love that dentist!). If Andrew wasn't given a detailed explanation for the reason why the new fillings were made, then his case falls into any or all of the following: (i) no informed consent was reached (ii) the patient was misled (iii) overprescription All of these are very serious charges and could lead to the dentist being charged with serious professional misconduct. If Andrew can find a good solicitor, who will contact the dentists's defence union first, I doubt that that case will ever need to reach a court. The defence union would probably settle for it, as they don't want the dentist charged with misconduct. It all comes down to how the solicitor handles it and how good the evidence at hand is. George Unbelievable. Only a fool would enter dental school to be paid no more than a sanitation worker. Fawks You see, it's difficult to remain > ethical when they pay you 7.5 pounds (about 9-10 dollars) for an > occlusal amalgam and 12.6 (14-15 dollars) for an extraction. > > George >Unbelievable. > >Only a fool would enter dental school to be paid no more than a >sanitation worker. TRUE plus the sanitation workers do not have to put up with the bad odors the dentists have to put up with ...... >Fawks > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> >> George >Unbelievable. > >Only a fool would enter dental school to be paid no more than a >sanitation worker. I hear they get paid pretty good in NYC. >Fawks > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> >> George -- W_B Take out the G'RBAGE wubbabubbazG@RBAGEyahoo.com >>Unbelievable. >> >>Only a fool would enter dental school to be paid no more than a >>sanitation worker. > >I hear they get paid pretty good in NYC. Surprisingly, the guys who clean schools really CLEAN UP. They get a contract and then hire their own staff. Joel >>Fawks >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >>> >>> George >>>Unbelievable. >>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Joel We had a guy in our class that would sweep out the C&B lab, get out his prospecting pan and recover all the gold on the floor. Honest. carabelli >>>>Unbelievable. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >carabelli Labs are notorious for recovering metals from floor sweepings ....... It simple ..... using electric current and a solute. > >>>>Unbelievable. > >>>> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Labs are notorious for recovering metals from floor sweepings ....... > It simple ..... using electric current and a solute. In Suisse, the watch makers used to have theire labcoats and clothes vacuumed to recuperate the gold as they left for the day. I assume the floors were done as well. Don't know if they still do that. JustMyExperience SP SignatureNot a real Addy, yet >>>>Unbelievable. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >carabelli Good idea for beer money, eh ? -- W_B Take out the G'RBAGE wubbabubbazG@RBAGEyahoo.com >>> Joel >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >W_B Beer money or better. Lots of money in scrap metals ..... I suspect many of the old amalgams were at the end of their useful life anyway. But, the remaining amalgams were removed due to the material they were made of. The fees you quote are less than what it costs to provide the service. A dentist would be better off flipping burgers at McDonalds than working for that wage level. Why in the world would anyone give up so much of their life to learn how to do dentistry, invest hundreds of thousands of dollars/pounds setting up an office, to work for less than minimum wage? Signature~+--~+--~+--~+--~+-- Stephen Mancuso, D.D.S. Troy, Michigan, USA .................................................... This posting is intended for informational or conversational purposes only. Always seek the opinion of a licensed dental professional before acting on the advice or opinion expressed here. Only a dentist who has examined you in person can diagnose your problems and make decisions which will affect your health. ...................... > Steve, > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > George > I suspect many of the old amalgams were at the end of their useful life > anyway. But, the remaining amalgams were removed due to the material they [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > life to learn how to do dentistry, invest hundreds of thousands of > dollars/pounds setting up an office, to work for less than minimum wage? ... It ain't for nothing that the original Stabi-Dent was developed in the UK to palliate the anesthesia situation in the break-neck pace they work have to work in.... When I was in my Residence at McGill, we had some exchange students from the UK in observation. Even those STUDENT DENTISTS commented on the fact that the pace of work in North America is much more sane that what exists on the government payment program in Britain. I think that says something; that the students already know what kind of battle field they are going out into... JMHO SP SignatureNot a real Addy, yet > The fees you quote are less than what it costs to provide the service. A > dentist would be better off flipping burgers at McDonalds than working for > that wage level. Why in the world would anyone give up so much of their > life to learn how to do dentistry, invest hundreds of thousands of > dollars/pounds setting up an office, to work for less than minimum wage? Sadly it is true. The only way to achieve a good income (around 60-75K pounds per year) that would justify you being a dentist is to "cut corners". Fillings are done in 10 or less minutes, the patient is advised towards extraction rather than RCT, crowns and bridges in half an hour (and the patient returns next time to have the whole thing fitted rather than say test the metal core) and there are no metal partial dentures to be seen (we use fully acrylic ones with wires as clasps that serve more as gum strippers than dentures). Overprescription is very common. And of course we see between 20-35 patients per day (some even more). I can tell you that it is almost impossible to practice dentistry as I was taught in the university and I have to walk a very fine line between integrity and reality. Only rarely do I actually enjoy what I'm doing. Fortunately, you can booster your income by taking on private cases (like poor Andrew probably was). Even more fortunately, the NHS dental service is on th verge of collapsing in many areas, with many dentists abandoning to work in a fully private, sane environment. I can only hope that this scam which has brainwashed patients for 50 years into believing it's an actual high quality service won't stay here for much longer. I certainly don't intend to do that for the rest of my life. George I suspect it may be one of those things which everyone is afraid to abandon. But,,,,, immediately discover (on leaving the system) that they can make as much or more income treating 4-5 people a day and have virtually no stress. Signature~+--~+--~+--~+--~+-- Stephen Mancuso, D.D.S. Troy, Michigan, USA .................................................... This posting is intended for informational or conversational purposes only. Always seek the opinion of a licensed dental professional before acting on the advice or opinion expressed here. Only a dentist who has examined you in person can diagnose your problems and make decisions which will affect your health. ...................... >> The fees you quote are less than what it costs to provide the service. A >> dentist would be better off flipping burgers at McDonalds than working [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > George Thanks for sharing the reality of the situation. This should be required reading for those who try to promote a government-controlled dental system on this side of the pond. - dentaldoc > > The fees you quote are less than what it costs to provide the service. A > > dentist would be better off flipping burgers at McDonalds than working for [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > George > Thanks for sharing the reality of the situation. This should be > required reading for those who try to promote a government-controlled > dental system on this side of the pond. > > - dentaldoc Welcome to Kaaannnaaada... Well, somewhat, at least. The kids and welfare reciepients have a cleaning once per year and basic fillings paid at about a third of the 2004 price guide... They only pay Am in the back and there are other restrictions. You wouldn't believe the nit-picking that goes on b/4 we actually get paid. The real proof that gov't mediated health care doesn't work, is that Kaaannnaaaada is now trying desperately to get out of it. There is at least a two tier system in most branches: gov't and private clinics in urology, ENT, opthalmology, orthopedics, body piercing, etc, exist side by side despite the gov't repeatedly insisting that the system _works_. I don't think that just because you're bigger, and you have more $$$ to spend will mean that gov't health plans will work for you USA-ians. Let's hope there is another sol'n.... Where is Santa Claus when you really need him? JMO SP SignatureNot a real Addy, yet >I don't think that just because you're bigger, and you have more $$$ to >spend will mean that gov't health plans will work for you USA-ians. I thought we were USA-sians... -- W_B Take out the G'RBAGE wubbabubbazG@RBAGEyahoo.com > >I don't think that just because you're bigger, and you have more $$$ to > >spend will mean that gov't health plans will work for you USA-ians. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > W_B Yeah, that too... SP SignatureNot a real Addy, yet > Thanks for sharing the reality of the situation. This should be > required reading for those who try to promote a government-controlled > dental system on this side of the pond. Bill, The NHS started as a good idea: to keep patient free of pain and sepsis. But it then quickly mutated in a comprehensive service that tried to offer everything and succeeded in nothing. It's still a good idea to have a safety net for people who can't afford dentistry, but not for those who won't rather than can't. Dentistry evolves in giant leaps and there's no hope for a tightly regulated government plan to catch on. The NHS suffers greatly today as a whole, not just dentistry. Latest news is some hospital in the north had so huge waiting lists that have trained administrative personnel to do colonoscopies and sigmoidoscopies (!). The news proudly said that it was a world-first. You bet... other countries actually have doctors for that kind of thing. It's madness I'm telling you. George Over here the problem with healthcare is that there is so much expensive technology available. Even if the test is not needed, the patient and the physician each demand the test. The patient because they want every bit of information they can possibly get; and the physician because they are scared to death of being sued if this patient was the one out a million who would have had something show up positive on the test. When every condition gets an MRI, a CAT scan, expensive blood-work, and other tests despite the fact that the physician knew what the problem was after the initial verbal description of symptoms, cost go out the roof. There is no way an insurance scheme or a government funded plan can keep up with this. Dentistry suffers from some of these same ills. Many a time, I could have spent 10 minutes or less with a patient and taken out a problem tooth, but had to spend 30 minutes getting a detailed history of the tooth, the pain, the previous treatment, radiographs, consent forms, etc. Sure am glad we have so many lawyers/solicitors. Signature~+--~+--~+--~+--~+-- Stephen Mancuso, D.D.S. Troy, Michigan, USA .................................................... This posting is intended for informational or conversational purposes only. Always seek the opinion of a licensed dental professional before acting on the advice or opinion expressed here. Only a dentist who has examined you in person can diagnose your problems and make decisions which will affect your health. ...................... >> Thanks for sharing the reality of the situation. This should be >> required reading for those who try to promote a government-controlled [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > George >> Thanks for sharing the reality of the situation. This should be >> required reading for those who try to promote a government-controlled [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >leaps and there's no hope for a tightly regulated government plan to >catch on. Yep, just look at Microsoft for a case and point. By the time the government brought the case Uncle Bill was three versions of IE down the road and two OS upgrades. >The NHS suffers greatly today as a whole, not just dentistry. Latest >news is some hospital in the north had so huge waiting lists that have [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >George -- W_B Take out the G'RBAGE wubbabubbazG@RBAGEyahoo.com > Yep, just look at Microsoft for a case and point. > > By the time the government brought the case Uncle Bill > was three versions of IE down the road and two OS upgrades. ..... and it's still....... Merde, in my humble opinion.... SP SignatureNot a real Addy, yet >> Yep, just look at Microsoft for a case and point. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > ..... and it's still....... Merde, in my humble opinion.... > SP It will be an interesting retrospective study in 20 - 30 yrs. How did the world's most used operating system continue to drop *merde* on it's customers for years and still succeed? It's as if Boeing was able to deliver 10% of its' customers to their destination on the first try without crashing. carabelli > > ..... and it's still....... Merde, in my humble opinion.... > > SP [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > carabelli It's because Big Bill is a warrior buisness man. You take Boeing with that track record and put Big Bill at the helm and he'd do the same with that company. So, IMO, it has nothing to do with the product, and everything to do with the packaging and marketing... Oh, I almost forgot his Mafia-like blackmailing of IBM and other major players... That helps too... JMO SP SignatureNot a real Addy, yet |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message