INGLIS v SUSAN BRAND [2016] ScotSC 63 (30 September 2016)

INGLIS v SUSAN BRAND [2016] ScotSC 63 (30 September 2016)

The defender did not depart from the standard of care expected of a competent dentist at the relevant time, as many dentists would have proceeded without a periapical x-ray and the relevant guidelines did not make it mandatory. The pursuer was warned of material risks and gave informed consent. There was no causal link between the extraction and the alleged injuries; no loss, injury, or damage was established.

Citation
[2016] ScotSC 63
Parties
Pursuer: Scott Inglis; Defender: Susan Brand
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
30 September 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Medical Negligence / Judgment After Proof (trial)
Outcome
Decree of absolvitor in favour of the defender; pursuer's claim refused.
Legal Topics
Informed Consent, Standard of Care, Dental Negligence, Causation, Damages
Medical Negligence Tort/delict Consent (medical) Informed Consent Standard of Care Dental Negligence Causation Damages

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Scott Inglis

Pursuer

Susan Brand

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil Medical Negligence / Judgment After Proof (trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defender breached the duty of care by extracting the LL8 tooth without a periapical x-ray
  2. 2 Whether the pursuer gave informed consent to the extraction
  3. 3 Whether the extraction caused the pursuer loss, injury, or damage

Ratio Decidendi

The defender did not depart from the standard of care expected of a competent dentist at the relevant time, as many dentists would have proceeded without a periapical x-ray and the relevant guidelines did not make it mandatory. The pursuer was warned of material risks and gave informed consent. There was no causal link between the extraction and the alleged injuries; no loss, injury, or damage was established.

Court Disposition

Decree of absolvitor in favour of the defender; pursuer's claim refused.

Orders

  • Refuses the pursuer’s crave for payment.
  • Pronounces decree of absolvitor in favour of the defender.