The claim

The patient subsequently brought a claim, alleging the DDU member caused them to suffer neuropraxia at the time of extraction of the LR7. They also alleged that they suffered from prolonged pain and suffering, ongoing pain and discomfort, altered sensation, neuropraxia, upset and distress, and anxiety and loss of confidence in their dental providers.

Responding to the claim on the member's behalf, we sought independent expert opinion in order to investigate the allegations. The expert found that the member had not breached their duty of care and was supportive of their treatment. They believed that although the neuropraxia was unfortunate, it was an unpredictable event that could not have been avoided.

The outcome

On the basis of the supportive expert evidence the DDU served a letter of response denying liability. The response noted that the DDU member followed the standard practice for an extraction and that reasonable skill and care was taken in doing so. It also argued that it was through no fault of the DDU member that the patient unfortunately experienced neuropraxia, and with supportive expert evidence the allegations were denied.

The patient's solicitors did not provide a response for almost three months. When they did, they noted that they had also sought expert advice and that the DDU member was responsible for a persistent tingling sensation on the patient's lip. They made an offer to settle the claim for £2,500.

We reverted to our independent expert for their further opinion. They maintained their position and views that the member used the correct technique and used the skill and care expected of a competent dentist. We again denied liability, and the patient's solicitors returned a few weeks later to confirm that they were no longer pursuing the claim, and the file was discontinued.

Neuropraxia

Neuropraxia banner ad 1