A speech therapist has been awarded £250,000 after successfully suing her dentist over claims her tongue was ‘on fire’ due to botched surgery.
Alison Winterbotham, 55, was injured during the removal of her lower right wisdom tooth by dentist Dr Arash Shahrak in November 2020 following painful gum inflammation.
During the operation under local anesthesia, her lingual nerve, which provides sensation to the tongue, was essentially severed, which she says left her with almost constant searing pain.
Mrs Winterbotham, who says she has been driven mad by the pain, took her dentist to the High Court in July, claiming the operation ruined her career in speech therapy and counseling because it now hurts to speak.
In suing, she accused him of negligently failing to advise her of the potential risk of serious nerve damage before her tooth was pulled.
Speech therapist Alison Winterbotham (pictured) was injured when her lower right wisdom tooth was removed by dentist Dr Arash Shahrak in November 2020 after painful gum inflammation
Speech therapist Alison Winterbotham outside the High Court in London. Ruling on the claim, Judge Neil Moody KC ruled in favor of Ms Winterbotham, awarding her £265,000 in damages
Today, judging the claim, Judge Neil Moody KC found in favor of Ms Winterbotham, awarding her £265,000 in damages.
The judge found that he would not have proceeded with the tooth extraction if he had been properly warned of the risk of nerve damage and would have been likely to choose an alternative less dangerous procedure.
“Mrs Winterbotham continues to suffer constant pain and discomfort which is causing disability,” the judge said, awarding her the compensation package.
The payout includes more than £200,000 for past and future loss of earnings, plus money to cover the cost of having her neck professionally massaged in an attempt to alleviate her symptoms.
The court previously heard how Mrs Winterbotham’s nerve injury has affected her personal life and career, driving her “crazy” and leaving her struggling with chronic pain and feeling mentally drained.
“No one will take this pain away, I’m stuck with this until the day I die,” he told the judge from the witness box.
“It’s like my tongue is on fire, that’s all I can say.”
Mrs Winterbotham, from Cambridge, likened her pain to a constant burn, explaining: ‘My tongue burns and tingles all the time and I’m in pain.
Dr Arash Shahrak – dentist sued for wisdom tooth surgery leaving London High Court
Stock photo of a dentist with their patient. The operation itself was not allegedly negligent, but she was not warned about the particular “high risk” to her nerves
“Every time I move my tongue to talk a little, the nerve gets overstimulated, making the burning and tingling worse.
“It’s worse when I’m talking,” Ms Winterbotham said, adding that she is “desperate” to continue her career but has been unable to return to speech therapy and can only see two or three counseling clients a day as needed. breaks from speaking.
Explaining the impact on her client, Camilla Church’s lawyer said: “Experts agree that the chronic pain experienced by the claimant has significantly and adversely affected her quality of sleep and significantly affects her ability to eat and drink.
“The experts agree that the applicant’s ability to speak has been adversely affected by the chronic neuropathic pain she experiences and that, as the applicant is a speech therapist, her ability to speak affects her ability to work.
“Experts agree that the index finger injury and associated neuropathic pain will affect her ability to work as a consultant.
“The experts also agree that the applicant’s chronic pain has had a significant impact on her social and family life and that the applicant has become socially withdrawn as a consequence of the chronic pain she experiences.”
The lawyer claimed during the trial that Dr Shahrak – based at a surgery in Shawston, near Cambridge – was at fault for failing to secure his patient’s “informed consent” before removing her wisdom tooth.
The operation itself was not allegedly negligent, but she was not warned about the particular “high risk” to her nerves.
He said Mrs Winterbotham was not “informed enough or at all” about the risk of nerve injury and was not offered a bone scan to assess the level of that risk.
“She was not advised of the alternative treatment of coronal resection, which would have reduced the risk of injury to both the inferior alveolar nerve and the lingual nerve,” he added.
A coronalectomy procedure would be a safer option, as it involves removing only the crown of the affected wisdom tooth while keeping the roots intact, he said.
But Dr Shahrak denied any wrongdoing and insisted he did everything he could to ensure his patient was aware of all the potential risks, including the risk of injury she suffered.
He told the judge he had given his patient full advice about the risks of surgery before going ahead and had no reason to rate her as “high risk”.
In his witness statement, he said he offered all the key information needed for Ms Winterbotham to make an informed decision.
She was given a document labeled ‘Guidance note – Wisdom teeth removal’, she said.
Stock photo of a dentist’s tools. Dr Shahrak denied any wrongdoing and insisted he did everything he could to ensure his patient was aware of all the potential risks, including the risk of injury she suffered
Stock photo of a dentist’s room. Neurologist Robena Dhadda, giving evidence, told the judge she believed part of the reason Ms Winterbotham had not fully returned to work was a lack of confidence
Alternative coronary artery bypass grafting would never have been carried out as there was nothing to suggest scans should have been carried out that would have indicated it, his lawyers argued.
Neurologist Robena Dhadda, giving evidence, told the judge she believed part of the reason Ms Winterbotham had not fully returned to work was a lack of confidence.
With psychological counselling, she could return to speech therapy, he said, adding: “I think she could realistically aim to regain 70 to 80 per cent of her pre-incident working capacity.
“He has not tried to return to speech therapy. I think it has to do with self-confidence and low self-esteem because he hasn’t tried to go back to speech therapy.”
With shorter breaks, he could also see more counseling clients, he said.
For Ms Winterbotham’s case to succeed, the dentist first had to be found to have failed to point out all the risks and to point out possible alternative treatments.
He then had to prove “on the balance of probabilities” that the nerve damage would have been avoided if he had undergone the alternative treatment of coronary artery bypass grafting.
The sentencing judge said: “In her witness statement, Mrs Winterbotham answered the question of what she would have done if she had been told she was at greater risk of damage to the lingual nerve.
“She was certain she would not have proceeded with an extraction that day. She would certainly have requested a CT scan if she had been discussed with her and asked to have the extraction done under general rather than local anaesthesia.
“She said that, as an experienced speech therapist, she already knew the potential effects and effects of damage to the lingual nerve in terms of sensation, pain, eating and speech, so she would not have taken the extraction so lightly. if he knew about the increased risk of the operation.
“He said ‘I’m not a risk taker in life, I tend to be cautious and consider my options carefully.’
“She said she would have asked Dr Shahrak about any alternative treatments and prevented her from going ahead with the extraction that day. She would like to go home and discuss the situation and options with her husband before making a decision.
“There was a negligent failure to warn and, but for the failure to warn, the process would not have taken place when it did.
“The relevant breach was the failure to inform that it was a high risk contrary to the normal risk procedure.
“There was a nerve injury and that was exactly the injury he should have been warned about.
“Accordingly, I conclude that the plaintiff succeeds on both her main and her alternative case as to causation. I find that, but for her negligence she would have had a coronary artery bypass graft.
“Alternatively, I find that if he had been properly informed of the material risk of nerve damage, which risk did arise, he would at least have postponed the operation.”
The judge awarded £40,996.69 for past loss of earnings, £162,517.06 for future loss of earnings and £7,739.40 for future medical care, medication and treatments
The sum includes more than £1,000 to cover the cost of a fortnight of specialist neck massages which she hopes will help her recovery.
