A dental practice in the Essex area

3. On 13 June 2023, Mrs N attended the Practice for the extraction of two teeth after being referred by her dentist. She says during the procedure, the Practice extracted an incorrect tooth, without her consent.

4. Mrs N says she has suffered severe pain and discomfort, and has been left with permanent discomfort when eating. She says she has suffered stress and upset and the incorrect removal of such a large tooth has permanently affected how she looks and has had negative impact on the way she feels about herself.

5. She says she needs to have the correct tooth extracted but cannot as she will not be able to eat easily due to an additional gap.

6. Mrs N is seeking a financial payment of £2950 for a dental implant for the permanent gap in her teeth and for the pain and distress caused.

8. The law says we cannot investigate a complaint where a person has (or had) the option to take legal action, unless we consider this is (or was) unreasonable in the circumstances. We have discussed this with Mrs N to understand her circumstances and the outcomes she wants. We do not consider whether legal action would succeed but whether it would be a reasonable option to look in to.

9. Mrs N told us her dentist referred her to the Practice to have her LL7 (lower left) and LR8 (lower right) teeth removed. She says, the Practice removed her LL6 and LR8 without anyone at the Practice expressing concerns or advising and obtaining her consent to extract the LL6.

10. The Practice says the X-ray showed, Mrs N’S first standing molar tilted mesially (towards the centre) which gives the clinic impression the LL6 was extracted some time ago, meaning the molar it extracted was the LL7.

11. Mrs N is seeking financial compensation for the pain, discomfort and long-lasting impact she has been left with regards to eating. Mrs N has told us she identifies her complaint as level 4, on our scale of injustice, which has an upper financial limit of £2950. On that basis, we consider Mrs N may have a potential clinical negligence claim available to her.

12. We asked Mrs N if there was any reasons or barriers which may prevent from exploring a legal route. She told us, she cannot financially afford to pursue a legal route. She did not notify us of any other barriers preventing her from pursuing legal action.

13. Based on all the above, we cannot see anything preventing Mrs N from exploring whether legal action is available to her. This could include via the free legal services such as Action Against Medical Accidents (AvMA) or no-win, no-fee solicitors.

14. Should the legal route be unsuccessful, she can bring her complaint back to our office, and we will consider the complaint. Mrs N she should be aware of our time limit to bring her complaint back to us, therefore should return her complaint to us promptly.

15. Furthermore, if Mrs N were to return to us after successfully taking legal action, we could consider a complaint about any matters that the court could not look at for her, or any outcomes that it could not have directly achieved for her.

16. Mrs N has a legal course of action available to her which it would be reasonable for her to pursue, so we will take no further action.

1. We have carefully considered Mrs N’s complaint about a dental practice in the Essex area (the Practice). We recognise how upsetting it must have been for Mrs N when she realised her tooth had been extracted.

2. We consider Mrs N could take legal action on the matter she has brought to us.