The scene

A patient attended a DDU member for extraction of a grossly carious molar. The extraction was challenging and time consuming, given the long roots and bone support, and required a surgical approach with sutures to close the wound.

The patient returned to the practice a few weeks later and advised that she was experiencing tinnitus in both ears, which had commenced following the extraction.

It was noted that the extraction socket was healing well and there was no evidence of nerve damage. The DDU member advised the patient to attend her GP regarding the tinnitus and gave safety netting advice.

The claim

The patient instructed solicitors to bring a clinical negligence claim against the DDU member. She stated that the extraction procedure took too long, was traumatic and was not completed to an appropriate standard.

She had attended an audiologist who confirmed she had tinnitus and hearing loss. She stated that she had perfect hearing before the extraction and that her tinnitus had been caused by the prolonged extraction procedure, leaving her with a permanent injury that affected her daily life and work.

How we helped

The member sought the DDU’s help in addressing the claim. We obtained the patient’s medical and dental records, and independent expert evidence from a GDP and an ENT specialist.

The GDP expert specified that developing tinnitus is not a known or expected risk associated with any form of dental treatment. It would therefore not be discussed with a patient as part of the consenting process for an extraction. He confirmed there was no evidence of any breach of duty regarding the treatment planning, consent or extraction processes, and that the extraction was within the skillset of the member.

The ENT expert firmly stated that dental extractions do not cause tinnitus. He considered the patient’s records and concluded that she had pre-existing sensorineural hearing loss, which was typical for a person of her age, and that her tinnitus was mild.

The outcome

Both experts agreed that the DDU member could not have done anything to prevent the tinnitus that the patient was experiencing.

Liability was denied on behalf of the DDU member in a formal letter of response, and although the patient disputed, we maintained our position and the claim was eventually discontinued.