Woman left ‘in constant pain’ by dental procedure awarded damages at High Court

A former speech and language therapist who “suffers constant pain and discomfort in her tongue and mouth” after a dentist damaged a nerve has been awarded more than £250,000 by a judge at the High Court.

Alison Winterbotham brought legal action against Dr Arash Zaker Shahrak, claiming the dentist failed to properly explain the risks associated with the removal of her wisdom tooth before an extraction in 2020.

Mrs Winterbotham, who was 55 at the time of the procedure and retraining to become a counsellor, said she did not give informed consent for the tooth to be removed and would have opted for an alternative treatment had she been aware it was an option.

Dr Shahrak, a highly experienced oral surgeon who ran his own dental surgery in Cambridge, claimed he had offered Mrs Winterbotham a leaflet that set out the risks associated with the procedure.

In a 40-page judgment published on Monday, Deputy High Court Judge Neil Moody KC said Dr Shahrak was in breach of duty and ordered him to pay £265,000 in damages.

The judge said Dr Shahrak “failed to obtain Mrs Winterbotham’s informed consent” and that he also “failed to discuss the material risks with her”.

Judge Moody added the patient “would not have undergone extraction” had alternative treatments been offered and that “she would have avoided all nerve injury”.

A hearing in July heard Mrs Winterbotham had a partially erupted wisdom tooth and was referred to Dr Shahrak in November 2020.

Judge Moody said that “as an experienced speech and language therapist” Mrs Winterbotham “was already aware of the potential impact and implications of damage to the lingual nerve in terms of sensation, pain, eating and speech, so she would not have taken the extraction so lightly if she had known about the increased risk of the procedure”.

At the hearing, Mrs Winterbotham, who originally claimed £956,523 in damages, told the court she was “not a risk taker in life” and that had alternative treatments been offered she would have put off proceeding with the extraction that day.

Judge Moody added that Mrs Winterbotham said she “did not receive the guidance note at any time”, which would have informed her of the risks.

The judge said Dr Shahrak was “very sorry that Mrs Winterbotham had suffered an injury” and that it “was the first time that it had happened in 24 years”.

Dr Shahrak, the judge said, “went through the other risks” that were in the guidance note he gave her and “asked Mrs Winterbotham whether she had any questions and she confirmed she did not”.

The court heard that Dr Shahrak “accepted that he did not discuss coronectomy”, a procedure that removes the crown which Mrs Winterbotham said “would have been a suitable and lower risk alternative”.

Judge Moody said Mrs Winterbotham “should first have been supplied” with the guidance note and that “at the consultation, she should have been taken through the consent form”.

He added: “The specific adverse consequences of nerve injury and its potential effect on her tongue and speech should have been discussed in the context of her occupation as a speech and language therapist.

“This is because Mrs Winterbotham was likely to attach significance to the risks and Dr Shahrak was or should reasonably have been aware that she would be likely to attach significance to it.”

Judge Moody said in the ruling that as a result of the injuries Mrs Winterbotham said she was “now unable to work as an SLT because it involved hour-long sessions where she is required to demonstrate a long succession of sounds, sentences and phrases for clients to imitate”.