Personal Injury Case Study: Overcoming Limitation Hurdles in a Dental Negligence Claim
Background:
Our client initially acted as a litigant in person and approached us after their limitation period had expired. The incident occurred in 2018, but by the time we had been contacted we had missed the three-year limitation window. The client had tried to handle the matter independently, and it seemed the dental practice and insurers did not provide adequate assistance, potentially misleading the client and delaying their responses.
Challenges and considerations:
The primary challenge was that the client’s claim was outside the limitation period, which is typically three years from the date of the incident or knowledge of the injury. Defendants are not obligated to help bring a claim, but in this case, they seemed to deliberately delay their responses to our client. The client was only informed about the expiration of the limitation period after it had passed, which we argued was deceitful. Overcoming this limitation hurdle was crucial to avoid dismissal of the claim.
Client-centric approach:
Upon taking instructions, we sought counsel’s advice on overcoming the limitation defence. Under section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980, the court can allow a case to proceed if there are good grounds for the delay. We worked closely with counsel to build a strong argument for the client’s case, emphasising their lack of awareness about the timeframe and the misleading conduct of the dental practice and insurers.
Collating evidence:
The client had been a regular attendee to their dentist and in 2018 had complained about gaps appearing in their teeth. The client was referred to a dental hospital where following examination they were diagnosed with severe gum disease. The gum disease had been present for some time but had not been appropriately treated by the client’s dentist resulting in progression of the disease and the client needing to undergo numerous mouth surgeries. This condition should have been identified and treated earlier by the dentist. Our investigations revealed that the dentist had been aware of the client’s condition but had failed to inform our client of the disease, give appropriate advice on oral hygiene, and failed to take appropriate action.
The settlement:
The dental insurers initially refused to accept breach of duty arguing that the claim was statute barred. Court proceedings were issued, and the defendants defended the case vigorously. As the trial on the limitation approached, the insurers began to negotiate. On the morning of the trial, settlement was agreed with the defendant’, acknowledging the weaknesses in their case. This settlement reflected our confidence in the client’s case but also the risks involved.
Conclusion:
This case highlights the importance of thorough investigation and perseverance in the face of significant challenges. By obtaining expert advice and working collaboratively with the client and counsel, we were able to overcome the limitation hurdle and secure a fair settlement for our client. Our client-centric approach and willingness to take on high-risk cases ensured that the client received the justice they deserved. This case underscores the importance of believing in the client and standing by them, even when faced with an unreasonable defence.
Rogers & Norton’s talented and knowledgeable Personal Injury team have many years’ experience handling all types of Personal Injury and clinical negligence claims, ranging from modest accidents to cases of the upmost severity that have had a life changing impact on the claimant, to fatalities with large dependency claims. For more information, visit our Personal Injury service pages or to arrange an appointment for a free initial discussion, please contact us by calling 01603 666001 or emailing enquiries@rogers-norton.co.uk.