The High Court awarded Namalie Goonetilleke €99,789 in damages after finding that dental treatment by Eduard Bujevics and Norbert Szente caused her prolonged pain, infection and distress. The claim proceeded undefended on 9 June 2023 after the defendants’ solicitors were permitted to come off record and neither defendant appeared. The judgment was delivered on 31 July 2023.
Mr Justice Mícheál P. O’Higgins found that the defendants’ design connected natural teeth and implants in a single eight-unit bridge, a method he said was not standard practice. He accepted specialist evidence that the design was inappropriate and that insufficient groundwork had been done to prevent infection and damage to bone and gums. The court concluded that the treatment fell below the required standard and that, but for the breach of duty, Goonetilleke would not have suffered the injuries and losses.
The treatment was carried out in May 2013 at the defendants’ dental practice in Woodquay, Ennis. The court heard that Goonetilleke experienced ongoing pain, sensitivity, swelling and infections, with pain sometimes extending to her jaw and ear. She had remedial dental treatment over subsequent years and faced further procedures, including removal of a failed implant and replacement bridge work. The judge accepted that the symptoms disrupted her sleep, mood, confidence and enjoyment of daily life. He also took account of her pre-existing dental difficulties and family history of periodontal disease, while finding the defendants’ work was the predominant cause of her ongoing problems.
The award comprised €50,000 for past pain and suffering, €10,000 for future pain and suffering, and a €10,000 uplift for psychological injuries. The court allowed €14,844 in past special damages and €14,545 for proposed future treatment, plus €400 for the estimated cost of removing an implant. The judgment’s individual amounts add to €99,789. The defendants were also ordered to pay the plaintiff’s costs on the High Court scale.
The court heard evidence from Goonetilleke and prosthodontist Dr Kevin Gilmore. It did not rely on reports from other dental experts who were not called to give evidence, except where Dr Gilmore referred to them for context. The judgment records that the defendants had delivered a defence denying liability but did not appear at the hearing.