Overview
Most British Columbians visit the dentist expecting routine care, whether it is a cleaning, a filling, or a wisdom tooth extraction. We place a high degree of trust in dental professionals to work within our mouths with precision and care. However, dental procedures carry inherent risks, and when that care falls below the accepted legal standard, the consequences can be devastating. One of the most severe and enduring injuries resulting from dental work is nerve damage.
If you have suffered a nerve injury following a dental procedure, you may be facing permanent numbness, chronic pain, or a loss of function. While not every bad outcome constitutes malpractice, understanding the intersection of dentistry and Canadian tort law is essential for determining if you have a valid claim for negligence.
The Anatomy of a Dental Injury
The most common dental procedures associated with nerve injuries are the extraction of wisdom teeth, root canals, and the placement of dental implants. The nerves most frequently at risk are the inferior alveolar nerve and the lingual nerve. When these nerves are crushed, severed, or compressed, the patient may experience paresthesia (numbness), dysesthesia (painful burning or tingling), or a loss of taste.
These injuries can affect a person's ability to eat, speak, and taste, often leading to significant psychological distress and a reduction in quality of life. In British Columbia courts, proving that these injuries warrant compensation requires navigating complex medical and legal principles.
Establishing Negligence in British Columbia
In Canada, a dentist is not a guarantor of a perfect result. The law recognizes that medical procedures have risks. To succeed in a dental malpractice lawsuit, a plaintiff must prove that the dentist breached the standard of care expected of a reasonable, competent dentist in similar circumstances.
This often involves examining the preoperative planning. Did the dentist take appropriate X-rays or CT scans to map the location of the nerves? If the nerve was in a high-risk position, did the dentist refer the patient to a specialist, such as an oral surgeon, rather than attempting the procedure themselves? If a dentist proceeds with a complex extraction or implant placement without adequate imaging or skill, and nerve damage ensues, this may constitute a breach of the standard of care.
The Critical Role of Informed Consent
A significant portion of dental litigation in Canada revolves around the doctrine of informed consent. Under Canadian law, a dentist has a duty to disclose all material risks associated with a procedure before treating a patient. A risk is considered material if a reasonable person in the patient's position would want to know about it before deciding whether to proceed.
Nerve damage is a known risk of many dental surgeries. However, simply signing a consent form is not always sufficient to protect a dentist from liability. The court looks at whether a meaningful discussion took place. If a dentist fails to clearly explain the specific risk of permanent nerve damage, and the patient testifies that they would not have undergone the procedure had they known the risks, the dentist may be liable even if the surgery itself was performed flawlessly. This is particularly relevant for elective procedures where the benefit does not clearly outweigh the catastrophic risk of permanent facial numbness.
Damages and Compensation
If negligence is established, the court will award damages to restore the plaintiff, as much as possible, to the position they were in before the injury. In cases of permanent nerve damage, compensation can be significant.
General damages are awarded for pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life. In BC, these amounts are capped but can still be substantial depending on the severity of the symptoms. Furthermore, if the injury affects the plaintiff's ability to work—for example, a teacher who can no longer speak clearly or a chef who has lost their sense of taste—claims for loss of income and loss of future earning capacity can form the bulk of the settlement.
Steps to Take If You Suspect Negligence
If you are experiencing persistent numbness or pain after a dental appointment, time is of the essence. The Limitation Act in British Columbia generally imposes a two-year limitation period to file a claim, starting from the day you discovered (or reasonably ought to have discovered) the injury and its potential connection to the dental work.
First, seek a second opinion from a specialist or a different dentist to assess the extent of the damage. Immediate intervention can sometimes repair nerve injuries, but the window for repair is narrow. Second, request a complete copy of your clinical records, including X-rays and consent forms. Finally, consult with a lawyer who specializes in medical or dental malpractice. These cases require expert testimony from other dental professionals to define the standard of care, making them legally and technically complex to pursue alone.