BGH dentist does not receive a fee for useless implants

Physicians and dentists may not charge a fee for treatment against medical standards. This is the case, if the treatment was ultimately useless for the patient and even a follow-up treatment can only lead to a "stopgap", judged on Thursday, September 13, 2018, the Federal Court (BGH) in Karlsruhe on dental implants (Az .: III ZR 294/16).

Patients do not always have to pay when implants are useless. (Image: FS-Stock / fotolia.com)

In the case of a dispute, a woman from Lower Saxony had eight implants inserted, so pins on which then crowns or bridges can be placed. Because of persistent pain, she broke off the treatment and moved to another practice. The first dentist charged her with 34,277 euros for the implants and other services.

However, the patient refused to pay. All implants are unusable because they have not been placed deep enough in the jawbone and positioned incorrectly. A professional prosthetic restoration is thus not possible. For the after-treatment exists only "the choice between plague and cholera". In addition, the bill was excessive.

Appraisers had confirmed the shortcomings. Nevertheless, the Higher Regional Court (OLG) Celle the dentist almost half of the required fee, specifically 16,957 euros. Despite the shortcomings, it is still possible to use the implants for a prosthesis.

As the BGH decided, the implants are "objectively and subjectively completely worthless". Because there is no after-treatment, which lead to a "at least substantially the rules of dental art appropriate condition". If the implants were used, the artificial teeth placed on them would presumably not be durable; In addition, there is a high risk of inflammation. The dentist is therefore not entitled to a fee even if the patient decides to continue this treatment in order to avoid further intervention for the removal of the implants.

In general, the BGH emphasized that a medical or dental treatment is a contract for "higher-level services". Patients could therefore cancel the treatment contract "at any time without Greens". Although the doctor owe no treatment success, but a treatment according to the rules of the medical or here "dental art". In the dispute, the dentist did not do this.

The OLG Celle is now still to examine the extent to which the other items of the bill are justified. The patient also accuses the dentist that the treatment was unnecessary or not appropriate. If there are still justified items left on the bill, the Higher Regional Court shall further clarify whether there was an agreement between the dentist and the patient on the amount of the admissible fees. mwo