Faulty doctor's therapy not on explicit request

OLG Hamm: Dentist was not allowed to be pushed by the patient
Hamm (jur). Doctors and dentists should not treat the medical standard even if patients expressly request it. This was decided by the Higher Regional Court (OLG) Hamm in a case of a dentist announced on Monday, June 27, 2016 (Ref .: 26 U 116/14).

In the specific case, the patient was dissatisfied with a crown inserted by another dentist in the lateral area and also wanted a refurbishment of her front teeth. The dentist, however, noted dysfunction of the temporomandibular joints and the entire masticatory apparatus.

(Image: Monkey Business / fotolia.com)

The dentist initially wanted to treat these disorders with a "bite splint", a custom-made plastic overlay for the denture. Then he wanted to turn to the posterior teeth and only then to the front teeth.

According to their own information, the dentist clarified the patient about the meaning of this sequence, but at the request of the patient she then prematurely began to renovate the front teeth. As a result, the bite height was insufficient and new problems appeared on the temporomandibular joints.

The patient attributes this to a faulty treatment. With her action, she demands 25,000 euros compensation, 17,300 euros budgetary damage and the repayment of the dental fee in the amount of 3,750 euros.

The district court approved the patient. It condemned the dentist to repay the fee and initiated a so-called amount procedure to determine the amount of the further compensation.

The OLG Hamm has now confirmed this. The dentist had begun correctly with the therapy of the disorders of the masticatory apparatus. He then let the patient dissuade her and stopped this treatment prematurely. Instead, he then "too early" with the anterior reconstruction started. As a result, the bite height had been set wrong, and it had come to further problems of the temporomandibular joints, which could not be removed later.

The dentist can not rely on the fact that the patient has specifically requested this, emphasizes the Higher Regional Court Hamm in its already valid judgment of 26 April 2016. Rather, he would have had to reject the treatment against the medical standard. An in-depth instruction on the possible consequences of incorrect treatment could not change that. Even such advice could not justify a "treatment error-prone approach". mwo / fle