A recent case relating to alleged negligence on the part of a
dentist highlights the difficulties when a case boils down to a
simple factual dispute – who is more convincing, the patient
or the dentist? A judge must ultimately decide.
This situation arose in a recent case in the UK[1]. It
related to the alleged negligent failure by a dentist, Mr Hughes,
to refer for investigation a lesion in the lower left side of a
patient's mouth. It was alleged that Mrs Drabble, the
patient, should have been urgently referred following an
examination on 30 June 2008. Following investigations, the
patient underwent surgery in July 2009 to remove a tumour on the
left floor of her mouth, extending into the lymph nodes. She
underwent radiotherapy and chemotherapy and fortunately made a good
recovery.
Factual Dispute
It was accepted by both parties that, had malignant changes been
present in June 2008, then referral and treatment prior to November
of that year would have meant less invasive and radical
treatment. However, the case ultimately centred around
the factual dispute between the patient and the
dentist.
The patient stated that she began to notice changes to a white
patch in the lower left side of her mouth, which had been under
observation by the dentist since 2004. The patient stated
that she brought this to the dentist's attention on 30 June
2008, on which date he undertook a full examination of her
mouth. However, it was the dentist's evidence that he
simply could not have failed to see the white patch when he
examined the patient in June 2008. He insisted he would have
recorded any concern expressed by her and would have referred her
if the appearance of the white patch had been as she described
it.
The Outcome
The judge was of the view that if the patient was correct in her
contentions, the dentist not only failed to observe the change in
the appearance of the white patch but he also failed to record her
complaints. These errors and omissions were then repeated to
a greater or lesser extent on each of the four further occasions on
which the dentist saw the patient throughout 2008 and
2009.
Having considered all of the evidence carefully, the judge found
it improbable that this persistent failure occurred, and ultimately
preferred the dentist's account of events. The patient's
case was therefore dismissed.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
[1] Drabble v Hughes [2013] EWHC 77 (QB)
