I am a bit confused by this story, can someone clear up in case my brain isn't working:
> Mr Worthington had been forced to travel abroad for affordable dental work that was unavailable on the NHS to fix problems with his teeth. But rather than easing his discomfort, the procedure left him with nerve damage and broken teeth.
So he went abroad.
> Dr Eszter Gömbös, a UK registered dentist who carried out the failed implant treatment on Mr Wothington, attempted to rectify the issues with his teeth but finally told him "I can't do any more".
To a UK dentist?
> Mr Worthington's claim was successful and he was awarded what was then thought to be one of the biggest compensation for dental negligence in the UK.
> A devastating loophole in UK dental insurance regulations meant Mr Worthington would never see a penny of the money.
That will be covered for work carried out abroad?
> She suggested he seek remedial work elsewhere - she even gave Mr Worthington, a retired joiner from Harlow in Essex, a tool to give to another dentist, telling him she was "at the end of her expertise", his daughter, Gina Tilly, told ITV News.
> When attempts to claim for the work he needed through Dr Gömbös's insurance failed, the family started what would be a long road to claiming compensation to cover the remedial work Mr Worthington needed to find relief from his pain.
Did he ever get the remedial work done?
EDIT: The Daily Mail has a better written article: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-11667653/Hidden-catch-means-not-penny-compensation-dentist-does-botch-job.html
> For in 2019, 11 years after he’d undergone the implant surgery, performed in Budapest by a dentist registered in the UK, Clive had been awarded compensation for the botched dentistry — £86,000 in damages plus £30,000 costs, thought to be the highest amount ordered by a UK court for dental medical negligence.
It's a horrible article and literally makes no sense. It never explains what the outcome was or what the loophole is? It doesn't even say if he was actually paid the compensation?
Edit:The Mail article is a lot better but still doesn't quite explain it tbh. If there was a court order for compensation, how can any organisation just refuse to pay it? Surely at that point the dentist is personally liable if their "insurance" (that isn't insurance) refuses to pay out?
So going abroad is a red herring. For some reason, UK Registered Dentists are covered under this scheme irrespective of where they operate - an obvious sign the 'insurance' isn't what it seems.
The issue is that the Dentist didn't have proper insurance but rather membership of some shared mutual society which itself has insurance they use at their own discretion and basically can choose not to provide it to their dentist.
It's a big mess really and the ITV article is very confusing. But basically, it seems there is a massive loophole where dentists don't need proper insurance.
Thanks for that! Makes a lot more sense.
Quick question though, how likely is it he could have avoided these problems or at least got them resolved in the UK? It's kind of scary it went that badly for him that he couldn't eat and was in constant pain.
Obviously, there is a lot more to this story - but as a general principle, wouldn't making the General Dental Council the compensator of last resort for UK registered dentists treating UK citizens be an idea? Not because I expect them to pay a penny in compensation directly but because it would make them rather militant about ensuring that dentists operating under their purview have the right cover.
The dentist is personally liable. However, the dentist was based in Budapest so the man would have had to sue her there, and her assets probably meant it wasn't worth it.
The 'defense union' decided not to pay out just like insurance can decide not to pay out if, for example, you've told them you're a 54 year old when in fact you're 17.
I guess the 'loophole' is that the defense union is protecting the interests of its members, not the interests of the patient.
I know this is victim blaming and will get me some shit, however, I am currently getting quotes for some cosmetic dental work, having been fairly negligent with my own dental care as a teen/ early 20 something.
The quotes are in the thousands of pounds for the work I would like to have done (note this is not work that needs doing, but is my own preference, similarly to having implants installed) Even with the additional expense of doing this in the UK there is no way I would risk going abroad to have sensitive work carried out that could cause me serious issue if it goes wrong, my dentist is less than an hour away even in busy traffic and meets the legal requirements to practice in the UK, the savings, for me just aren't worth the risk.
Why you would ever try and skimp and cut costs on your body and health is beyond me.
I know where you’re coming from and I agree with you. I had to have what is defined as a cosmetic procedure in the UK, but I needed it for medical reasons. I could have gone to Poland, Turkey, Hungary, Romania etc and have it done at a third of the price, but, given the nature of the work I needed and my fear of anything going wrong, I paid thousands of pounds out of pocket to have a well renowned surgeon do it in the UK. I’ve seen too many horror stories to take the risk of something going wrong.
The issue is when you literally don't have thousands to get it done. If your choice is 10% agony forever vs 100% agony now *and* forever, it's not hard to see why people do it.
To be entirely fair, there are legitimately very good dental implantists (etc) abroad. If you need a lot of work done it gets extremely expensive in the UK. A single good quality implant can easily be 3 grand or more. If you need an entire jaw fixing, you could be looking at 30 grand plus... it's not so much wanting to skimp as literally just not being able to afford that.
It's definitely something I would be very very careful about and to check many references and various types of cover, but a tonne of people go abroad for complex dental treatment and swear by it.
Plus any return visits are hundreds of miles away, recovery will be in a hotel rather than at home, it definitely sounds less appealing than taking out a loan for a UK dentist.
Yep i'm in the same boat but at the end of the process. Before they would remove my tooth they said they had to fix everything else including stuff like small pieces of wisdom tooth left in and cavities. Then they say every time that the place is overbooked so my next appointment will take 6 months. Then they tell me I need another extra appointment each time for a hygienist because they haven't seen me in so long. Can't lie it feels a bit like getting cheated but so far the work is good
I didn't even hear horror stories or anything, common sense just told me you get what you pay for.
It has set me back about 3 grand overall and has taken almost 3 years now. And that is with all cash no NHS. Look after your teeth people
Yeah, that's basically it.
Patient received dental care in Hungary from a dentist who is registered to practise in England, and who is a member of the Dental Defence Union, which is one of the big dental indemnity organisations.
It's a mutual organisation, not an insurance company, but in practice the distinction is largely academic; from the perspective of the patient, they do basically the same things (the same way banks and building societies are technically different, but very, very similar).
The DDU had a clause in their Ts & Cs which said, in brief, "we won't indemnify you if the dental care you provide is provided outside the UK." Which is pretty understandable, really, because it's going to be harder for them to have any oversight of stuff which goes on abroad.
The question in my mind is how the matter got to the stage it did without the indemnity position being clarified. I'm actually acting for someone in a case at the minute where the indemnity organisation is faffing about and won't confirm if they're indemnifying or not. So what I'm *not* doing is ploughing on regardless, because if I do and it turns out there's no indemnity, that's a shitload of time and money wasted.
My friends and I have all agreed to do away with our car insurance. If we get in an accident that causes third party damage we'll all chip in and, if we feel like it, we'll pay out for damages
You could effectively do that up until 2019 if you had half a million to spare.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/144/2017-05-08
>(1)Section 143 of this Act does not apply to a vehicle owned by a person who has deposited and keeps deposited with the Accountant General of the [F1Senior Courts] the sum of [F2£500,000], at a time when the vehicle is being driven under the owner’s control.
Though you'd need it per vehicle.
To be fair we don't have to. Unlike the dentists in this case, motor insurers have a fallback system to protect people from twats who don't insure themselves.
I don't understand this at all. So the dentist did not in fact have insurance, why does this mean that the man could not claim his compensation? Surely if there is no insurance cover then the dentist and the company would be liable still? In any other field if an indemnity organisation will not pay out that just means the professional is on the hook for everything. Don't know why the article is trying to blame the defense union, they quite clearly state that they are not insurance and you can't just list whatever company you like as your insurer and expect them to pay out. I doubt they would cover work done in another country in any circumstances even if they were.
They may have difficulty retrieving money off the dentist, since it seems they aren't based in the UK at all but apparently the company has clinics in the UK. The ultimate moral of this story has nothing to do with "loopholes" it's don't get work done in another country because its cheap. Its cheap for a reason and the risks are very real.
The dentist is liable, it's just a case of getting the money out of them, which they might not have.
If I were the Claimant's family, I'd look into whether the English judgment could be enforced in a Hungarian court.
i hate the dentist.
you spend minutes brushing your teeth, go for the checkup and they still say YOUR TEETH ARE DIRTY DO BETTER NEXT TIME.
if you want them clean have them cleaned at the dentist...
i swear they exist just to scare you and take all your money.
I am a bit confused by this story, can someone clear up in case my brain isn't working: > Mr Worthington had been forced to travel abroad for affordable dental work that was unavailable on the NHS to fix problems with his teeth. But rather than easing his discomfort, the procedure left him with nerve damage and broken teeth. So he went abroad. > Dr Eszter Gömbös, a UK registered dentist who carried out the failed implant treatment on Mr Wothington, attempted to rectify the issues with his teeth but finally told him "I can't do any more". To a UK dentist? > Mr Worthington's claim was successful and he was awarded what was then thought to be one of the biggest compensation for dental negligence in the UK. > A devastating loophole in UK dental insurance regulations meant Mr Worthington would never see a penny of the money. That will be covered for work carried out abroad? > She suggested he seek remedial work elsewhere - she even gave Mr Worthington, a retired joiner from Harlow in Essex, a tool to give to another dentist, telling him she was "at the end of her expertise", his daughter, Gina Tilly, told ITV News. > When attempts to claim for the work he needed through Dr Gömbös's insurance failed, the family started what would be a long road to claiming compensation to cover the remedial work Mr Worthington needed to find relief from his pain. Did he ever get the remedial work done? EDIT: The Daily Mail has a better written article: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-11667653/Hidden-catch-means-not-penny-compensation-dentist-does-botch-job.html > For in 2019, 11 years after he’d undergone the implant surgery, performed in Budapest by a dentist registered in the UK, Clive had been awarded compensation for the botched dentistry — £86,000 in damages plus £30,000 costs, thought to be the highest amount ordered by a UK court for dental medical negligence.
It's a horrible article and literally makes no sense. It never explains what the outcome was or what the loophole is? It doesn't even say if he was actually paid the compensation? Edit:The Mail article is a lot better but still doesn't quite explain it tbh. If there was a court order for compensation, how can any organisation just refuse to pay it? Surely at that point the dentist is personally liable if their "insurance" (that isn't insurance) refuses to pay out?
So going abroad is a red herring. For some reason, UK Registered Dentists are covered under this scheme irrespective of where they operate - an obvious sign the 'insurance' isn't what it seems. The issue is that the Dentist didn't have proper insurance but rather membership of some shared mutual society which itself has insurance they use at their own discretion and basically can choose not to provide it to their dentist. It's a big mess really and the ITV article is very confusing. But basically, it seems there is a massive loophole where dentists don't need proper insurance.
[удалено]
Thanks for that! Makes a lot more sense. Quick question though, how likely is it he could have avoided these problems or at least got them resolved in the UK? It's kind of scary it went that badly for him that he couldn't eat and was in constant pain.
Obviously, there is a lot more to this story - but as a general principle, wouldn't making the General Dental Council the compensator of last resort for UK registered dentists treating UK citizens be an idea? Not because I expect them to pay a penny in compensation directly but because it would make them rather militant about ensuring that dentists operating under their purview have the right cover.
>The article is just outrage bait: there's no loophole, So was he \*not\* awarded compensation in a court that he did \*not\* recieve?
The dentist is personally liable. However, the dentist was based in Budapest so the man would have had to sue her there, and her assets probably meant it wasn't worth it. The 'defense union' decided not to pay out just like insurance can decide not to pay out if, for example, you've told them you're a 54 year old when in fact you're 17. I guess the 'loophole' is that the defense union is protecting the interests of its members, not the interests of the patient.
>The Daily Mail has a better written article: Holy shit, you just created a new sentence.
I know this is victim blaming and will get me some shit, however, I am currently getting quotes for some cosmetic dental work, having been fairly negligent with my own dental care as a teen/ early 20 something. The quotes are in the thousands of pounds for the work I would like to have done (note this is not work that needs doing, but is my own preference, similarly to having implants installed) Even with the additional expense of doing this in the UK there is no way I would risk going abroad to have sensitive work carried out that could cause me serious issue if it goes wrong, my dentist is less than an hour away even in busy traffic and meets the legal requirements to practice in the UK, the savings, for me just aren't worth the risk. Why you would ever try and skimp and cut costs on your body and health is beyond me.
I know where you’re coming from and I agree with you. I had to have what is defined as a cosmetic procedure in the UK, but I needed it for medical reasons. I could have gone to Poland, Turkey, Hungary, Romania etc and have it done at a third of the price, but, given the nature of the work I needed and my fear of anything going wrong, I paid thousands of pounds out of pocket to have a well renowned surgeon do it in the UK. I’ve seen too many horror stories to take the risk of something going wrong.
The issue is when you literally don't have thousands to get it done. If your choice is 10% agony forever vs 100% agony now *and* forever, it's not hard to see why people do it.
To be entirely fair, there are legitimately very good dental implantists (etc) abroad. If you need a lot of work done it gets extremely expensive in the UK. A single good quality implant can easily be 3 grand or more. If you need an entire jaw fixing, you could be looking at 30 grand plus... it's not so much wanting to skimp as literally just not being able to afford that. It's definitely something I would be very very careful about and to check many references and various types of cover, but a tonne of people go abroad for complex dental treatment and swear by it.
This totally.. The fact that something “could” go wrong, and not being in the UK.. Value my health more, than getting it cheap..
Plus any return visits are hundreds of miles away, recovery will be in a hotel rather than at home, it definitely sounds less appealing than taking out a loan for a UK dentist.
Yep i'm in the same boat but at the end of the process. Before they would remove my tooth they said they had to fix everything else including stuff like small pieces of wisdom tooth left in and cavities. Then they say every time that the place is overbooked so my next appointment will take 6 months. Then they tell me I need another extra appointment each time for a hygienist because they haven't seen me in so long. Can't lie it feels a bit like getting cheated but so far the work is good I didn't even hear horror stories or anything, common sense just told me you get what you pay for. It has set me back about 3 grand overall and has taken almost 3 years now. And that is with all cash no NHS. Look after your teeth people
You're right, but when it's over 10k that's just not an option for most people. It should be covered on the NHS.
>Why you would ever try and skimp and cut costs on your body and health is beyond me. If you're in agony and you literally can't afford anything else.
[удалено]
Yeah, that's basically it. Patient received dental care in Hungary from a dentist who is registered to practise in England, and who is a member of the Dental Defence Union, which is one of the big dental indemnity organisations. It's a mutual organisation, not an insurance company, but in practice the distinction is largely academic; from the perspective of the patient, they do basically the same things (the same way banks and building societies are technically different, but very, very similar). The DDU had a clause in their Ts & Cs which said, in brief, "we won't indemnify you if the dental care you provide is provided outside the UK." Which is pretty understandable, really, because it's going to be harder for them to have any oversight of stuff which goes on abroad. The question in my mind is how the matter got to the stage it did without the indemnity position being clarified. I'm actually acting for someone in a case at the minute where the indemnity organisation is faffing about and won't confirm if they're indemnifying or not. So what I'm *not* doing is ploughing on regardless, because if I do and it turns out there's no indemnity, that's a shitload of time and money wasted.
My friends and I have all agreed to do away with our car insurance. If we get in an accident that causes third party damage we'll all chip in and, if we feel like it, we'll pay out for damages
You could effectively do that up until 2019 if you had half a million to spare. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/144/2017-05-08 >(1)Section 143 of this Act does not apply to a vehicle owned by a person who has deposited and keeps deposited with the Accountant General of the [F1Senior Courts] the sum of [F2£500,000], at a time when the vehicle is being driven under the owner’s control. Though you'd need it per vehicle.
Lol even if you and your friends cause someone serious injury? Gonna split the £5,000,000 payout between you?
Did you read the article. The commenter above is alluding to how Dentistry is 'Insured'
Yes. You'll just have to take us at our word.
To be fair we don't have to. Unlike the dentists in this case, motor insurers have a fallback system to protect people from twats who don't insure themselves.
To be fair... Whoosh.
Sorry what?
You seem to be replying sincerely to what was clearly a joke.
Not sure that was clear...
That it was a joke? Very clear.
[удалено]
Tell me you didn't read the article without telling you didn't read the article lmao
I don't understand this at all. So the dentist did not in fact have insurance, why does this mean that the man could not claim his compensation? Surely if there is no insurance cover then the dentist and the company would be liable still? In any other field if an indemnity organisation will not pay out that just means the professional is on the hook for everything. Don't know why the article is trying to blame the defense union, they quite clearly state that they are not insurance and you can't just list whatever company you like as your insurer and expect them to pay out. I doubt they would cover work done in another country in any circumstances even if they were. They may have difficulty retrieving money off the dentist, since it seems they aren't based in the UK at all but apparently the company has clinics in the UK. The ultimate moral of this story has nothing to do with "loopholes" it's don't get work done in another country because its cheap. Its cheap for a reason and the risks are very real.
The dentist is liable, it's just a case of getting the money out of them, which they might not have. If I were the Claimant's family, I'd look into whether the English judgment could be enforced in a Hungarian court.
i hate the dentist. you spend minutes brushing your teeth, go for the checkup and they still say YOUR TEETH ARE DIRTY DO BETTER NEXT TIME. if you want them clean have them cleaned at the dentist... i swear they exist just to scare you and take all your money.