A former restaurant worker who alleged work by two dentists 91裸聊视频� including one who practises in South Surrey 91裸聊视频� 91裸聊视频渄ramatically altered91裸聊视频� her life has had her negligence claim dismissed in B.C. Supreme Court.

In the claim, Maria De Sousa alleged Dr. John Rogers 91裸聊视频� of White Rock Dental Group 91裸聊视频� breached the standard of care when he extracted a lower molar during her first appointment with him in June 2011, 91裸聊视频渄espite not being able to find an issue with the tooth that would justify this most aggressive of treatment methods.91裸聊视频�

Dr. Michael Racich, she alleged, breached the standard of care when he 91裸聊视频渃hose to place three implants91裸聊视频� despite 91裸聊视频渒nowledge of the possibility of neuropathic pain.91裸聊视频� Those treatments occurred between December 2011 and January 2013.

However, in reasons for judgment posted last Friday (Feb. 1), Justice Stephen Kelleher found that evidence presented 91裸聊视频渄oes not establish91裸聊视频� that either of the dentists breached the standard of care, or that their actions caused the damages suffered.

In his reasons, Kelleher notes 91裸聊视频渁 history of treatment91裸聊视频� for De Sousa91裸聊视频檚 extracted tooth dating back to 2004 and involving at least 11 other dental professionals, as well as a neurosurgeon. Several of those professionals testified in the civil trial, which was heard last year over 13 days in June, July and November.

Kelleher made his ruling on Feb. 1.

According to the reasons for judgment, the court heard that De Sousa was a patient with one South Surrey dentist for just over two years starting in July 2004. In that time, De Sousa did not follow recommendations for regular visits, nor did she proceed with a recommended crown on the tooth in question, which was suggested following a 91裸聊视频渇ractured restoration91裸聊视频� on the tooth that De Sousa said was 91裸聊视频渢rapping food,91裸聊视频� the court heard.

Procedures performed or recommended by various dentists over the years following included root canals, crowns and specialist referrals. There were also suggestions the pain could be due to a neurological condition.

De Sousa testified that after Rogers removed her tooth, she was left with a sharp burning pain. While she denied insisting Rogers extract the tooth, she agreed that she had said, in her examination for discovery, that she 91裸聊视频渁sked91裸聊视频� for the extraction.

De Sousa also testified that implants were the only treatment Racich suggested, that all she was given to prepare for them was a tube of Colgate toothpaste, that she had a lot of pain after the procedures and that Racich told her it was neuropathic pain.

De Sousa91裸聊视频檚 husband and daughters testified that De Sousa often complained of 91裸聊视频渂urning pain91裸聊视频� on the right side of her mouth after the extraction. She stopped dancing and driving, and lost interest in gardening, among other things, the court heard.

A neurologist testified that De Sousa has persistant idiopathic facial pain; described in the court document as 91裸聊视频渁 disorder of unknown cause which can be exacerbated by dental procedures.91裸聊视频�

Those procedures, the neurologist testified, are commonly an effort to address the initial complaint, but are often futile as the disorder is 91裸聊视频渢ypically not of primary dental origin.91裸聊视频�

In his reasons, Kelleher said De Sousa91裸聊视频檚 recollection of the circumstances or her treatment and her interaction with the dentists who saw her 91裸聊视频渨as, to put it kindly, imperfect.91裸聊视频�

91裸聊视频淢s. De Sousa91裸聊视频檚 evidence must be considered in light of her relatively poor memory. Moreover, much of what she told the Court is inconsistent with the 91裸聊视频榩robabilities of the case as a whole,91裸聊视频�91裸聊视频� the judgment states.

Kelleher dismissed the evidence of one expert called by the plaintiff, noting 91裸聊视频渄eeply flawed91裸聊视频� instructions from counsel that included asking the expert to provide an opinion 91裸聊视频渞egarding Maria De Sousa91裸聊视频檚 general disability arising from her medical malpractice injuries and the extent to which this interferes with her activities91裸聊视频�91裸聊视频�

The instructions 91裸聊视频渟uggest that (the expert) was instructed to assume that there has been negligence and medical malpractice,91裸聊视频� Kelleher found.

91裸聊视频淎s such, any conclusion reached by an expert based on these instructions is, as the defendants argue, a self-fulfilling prophecy.91裸聊视频�

Kelleher described the defendants91裸聊视频� evidence as 91裸聊视频渦nshaken in cross-examination.91裸聊视频�

Kelleher found that De Sousa has a history of self-diagnosis and of refusing treatment when she disagrees with the professional. While he said that is her right, 91裸聊视频渋t does not constitute tortious conduct on the part of the defendants.91裸聊视频�