A man who had a wisdom tooth is unsuccessfully exported and is required to have surgery performed in his mouth has lost a case of personal injury to the dentist who initially tried to mining after it was found that his actions were not outside the range of reasonable choices.
About this case:
- Reference:
[2025] SC Edin 35
- Crisis:
- Court:
Sheriff
- Judge:
Sheriff walls
Drinking James Gallagher said a claim against defender Jamie Clement, employed in a BUPA clinical dental care in Glasgow, arguing that he had violated his duty to take care of the persecutor, failing to obtain an orthodoxymography (OPG). In addition, he requested compensation on the basis of the failure to monitor care in the days that followed the export.
The case was heard by the walls of Sheriff Alastair in the Sheriff Sheriff’s court injury with McPhee, a lawyer, who appears for the persecutor and Clair, a lawyer, for the defender.
Obvious red flags
According to the recommendation of his GP, the persecutor attended a dental examination on September 21, 2022 in relation to the pain on the lower left of his jaw. He was examined by the defender, who found that the tooth of the lower left wisdom (LL8) was completely destroyed and exploded. The defender offered the swells the choice between the maintenance of the LL8 under consideration or export. Chooses to extract the tooth.
The persecutor watched the defender’s office for his scheduled LL8 mining on October 12, 2022. Before exporting, the defender explained the dangers of the process and took a peripheral radiography of the tooth to evaluate the roots. During the extraction operation, the defender encountered difficulties that meant that he failed to complete the export and had to dress the site with temporary filling and refer the persecutor to an oral surgeon at the Albion Clinic in Glasgow.
It was the position of the persecutor and that of the expert of the Witness of Dr Kerr, who had been executed an OPG before the export, the defender would be aware of the increased potential for complications and referred the persecutor without trying to export himself. The evidence of the defender was that the decision to make a peripheral radiography was done to keep the radiation doses as low as possible and because it usually provided better images than an OPG. He was shown by the OPG that was taken before the intervention of the raider and said that, on the basis of this image, he would still have been extracted, as the tooth was fully burst and could see the full crown and mouth structure.
For the persecutor, it was submitted that there were obvious red flags that were evident from the x -ray that showed that the LL8 had a predictable risk of breaking mining. He had not received communications from the defender within 48 to 72 hours of the failed process, which was out of normal practice. While defining the appropriate radiography has always been a matter of clinical crisis, it would be advisable to obtain an OPG.
The defendant on the defender argued that there was no basis to find out that there was a normal and ordinary practice that applies to the Pursuer LL8 conditions. The defender was absolutely credible and well -justified in explaining why he would have even progressed with the advantage of an OPG. At the second point, the evidence of the persecutor was that he did not call the defender because the practice ended at the weekend and at that time arranged an appointment with the Albion clinic for surgery.
Appropriate safety net
In his view, the walls of the sheriff said of the evidence of the parties: “The only important issue of reality, where there were conflicting evidence of whether the defender had given any advice on the treatment of the persecutor. Before, but that it was his usual practice, and therefore he believed he had.
He continued: “Dr. Kerr gave detailed and careful evidence, but in the end it seemed to me that he expressed what he would have done or what he would expect to do in the situation the defender found.
Given the existence of a standard practice, Sheriff said: “I have come to the conclusion that the Drinkler has failed to prove the existence of a standard dental practice to take an OPG before exporting an LL8 tooth presented in the same way as that. [the defender’s expert witness] Dr. Boyle cannot be said that the course of action sought by the defender was that he would not have usually taken a capable dentist.
Completed: “In relation to the requirement on the basis of the failure to obtain an OPG, the LL8 completely explodes, no roots with the dental channel referred to the effort, in all circumstances, and the defender had removed the second number of teeth. check if they received his referral.
Therefore, it was considered that the persecutor failed to prove his case and a decree of Absolvitor was granted in favor of Defender.
