The scene

A husband and wife had been patients at the surgery of a dentist, a DDU member, for many years. They were regular attenders and had a record of good oral hygiene, rarely requiring more treatment than a scale and polish. The couple moved to a different part of the country and registered with a new dental surgery. Their new dentist provided treatment plans for each patient which it was estimated would cost them many hundreds of pounds. The treatment included a visit to the hygienist followed by some fillings as well as the provision of crowns.

Shortly afterwards, their original dentist received a written complaint from the couple. They made clear their unhappiness with the treatment they had received from him over the years and suggested they thought he had been negligent in not identifying the problems that had apparently now come to light. They also said that they would withdraw their complaint if he agreed to pay the cost of the treatment with their new dentist. The dentist was taken aback by the complaint and called the DDU advisory helpline for assistance in responding.

MDU advice

The dento-legal adviser explained that while requests for payment from patients who had sought a second opinion on their dental treatment were relatively common, it was less common to hear of such a case where the patients had relocated. The adviser discussed the complaint with the member and advised that, in order to respond in full to the complaint, the dentist should first request copies of the records from the patients’ new dentist. These should include copies of any radiographs as well as the treatment plans and cost estimates.

The records from the new dentist showed that caries was present in two of the wife’s teeth. The visit to the hygienist was for a scale and polish. The crowns were recommended on teeth which had large fillings but there was nothing in the records to indicate that the existing fillings were failing.

The member realised he was vulnerable to criticism for failing to take any radiographs for the wife over the preceding five years. With the dento-legal adviser’s help, he drafted a response which explained that most of the treatment plan devised by the new dentist could be regarded as a legitimate difference of opinion between colleagues. However, he apologised for not diagnosing the caries and offered a refund of fees equivalent to the cost of the fillings needed to restore the decayed teeth. This was offered as a gesture of goodwill, in an attempt to conclude the complaint swiftly.

The patients wrote to the member to tell him that they were happy with the explanation and the offer of a refund of fees. The complaint was concluded.

Split the difference

Related articles

Membership in your pocket