Case type
Dental negligence expert reports.
Independent opinion on breach and causation in dental negligence claims, from a sub-specialist matched to the clinical issue.
What the claim must establish
How to tell when a claim is dental negligence
Breach of duty and causation are distinct limbs, and both must be met. A poor outcome on its own is not negligence.
The expert works from the clinical records, radiographs, referral correspondence, consent documentation and, where the claimant is examined, the current clinical picture. Where the records are incomplete, the report says so rather than filling the gap. The opinion states the standard expected, identifies where the care fell short of it, and addresses whether that shortfall caused the harm complained of. Where the evidence supports the defendant’s position, the report says so, because the expert’s overriding duty is to the court.
The expert we match
The sub-speciality is matched to the clinical issue.
The standard is set by the discipline
We match the sub-speciality to the procedure in issue, so the opinion is given by someone held to the same standard as the treating clinician.
Claimant, defendant or single joint
Our experts accept instructions from either party or as a single joint expert. The duty to the court, and the analysis, are unchanged.
The report you receive
A CPR Part 35-compliant report that separates the two limbs.
Why solicitors instruct us
The right expert, and evidence that withstands scrutiny.
Right expert, first time
Dental negligence is not one discipline. We match the sub-speciality to the clinical issue, so the CV withstands scrutiny on the specific procedure at issue.
A case manager who responds
A named case manager handles your instruction from first enquiry to delivered report, and updates you without being asked.
A CV before you instruct
You see the expert’s CV and a fixed quote before the instruction is placed, matched to the procedure in issue.
FAQs
Commonly asked questions
Care that falls below the standard of a reasonably competent practitioner in the relevant discipline, where that failure causes harm. Both limbs must be met, and a poor outcome on its own is not negligence.
Breach is often the more straightforward limb, because the clinical records show what was done. Causation is where claims are commonly lost, particularly where the claimant had pre-existing disease.
Full clinical records, radiographs, referral and consent documentation. Where records are missing, the report identifies the gap rather than assuming what they would have shown.
Yes. Our experts accept instructions from claimant, defendant, or as a single joint expert. The duty to the court is unchanged.
Yes. The report is compliant with CPR Part 35 in England and Wales, and with the equivalent expert-evidence rules in Scotland and Northern Ireland. The standard of care is assessed under the Bolam test, as refined by Bolitho, in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and under Hunter v Hanley in Scotland; in practice the two ask a very similar question.
Discuss an instruction