Public Mediation

My Claim vs. Dentfirst

  • FREE crypto coins; suggest a fair resolution to this case
  • $500 cash reward offered for best resolution
R. C. vs. Dentfirst
1650 Oakbrook Dr Ste 440, Norcross,, Georgia, 30093-1817, United States
Amount Involved: $177,500.00
    • Status: In Negotiation
      This claim has posted for public comment and negotiation. It will remain posted until resolved to the claimant's satisfaction. Suggest a resolution to help these parties reach a settlement.
      (seeking public comment)
    • View response from: Dentfirst
    • Claimant Seeks: View.
    • Claim #: 3179873
    • Amount Involved: 177,500.00
    • Filed On: Dec 17, 2015
    • Posted On: Jan 26, 2016
    • Complaint(s):
      • Commercial / Other dispute
  • Notice: There is a $500 reward for the publicly-contributed resolution that resolves this case.
  • Review this case.
  • Propose your solution.
  • Win the reward (1,000 pts + $500)
Statement of Claim
Claimant says:
"1. Started with Dentfirst September 2011
2. Oral Surgeon pulled back teeth and left fragments embed - Dr. left practice
3. General Dentist pulled fragments and front teeth
4. Implants (two lower) by Periodontist, both were set incorrectly - Dr. left practice next day
5. Temporary dentures could not be made to fit and patient forced to go 6 months with no teeth
6. General Dentist could not make a set of lower dentures that would stay in mouth and charged additional fee to reline dentures - still could not fit without injury to gums and jaw
7. After many more office visits the dentist said he needed more time to get it right. After months of weekly calls to office with no results patient called to tell office manger she wanted a refund and was going to another dentist. Patient was asked to give the practice one more chance. She would see a new dentist because first general dentist had died!
8. Second General Dentist made a set of lower dentures that stayed in but caused so much pain they could not be used for eating. Upper dentures now could not be fit because the bone had receded too much.
9. According to the practice manager DentFirst's Periodontist could not do the upper implants that were now needed and a referral was made to another practice (at patient's own expense)
10. Patient left DentFirst's practice in August 2015 without a usable set of dentures.
11. We feel there has been a breach of contract."
Reply Have a similar problem?
Exhibits View
Additional Communication Between Claimant and Dentfirst Hide
  • Feb 05, 2016, Claiming party added:
  • Please understand the many problems we have had with your Dentists. Since we were forced to go to another Dentist you must refund all monies paid and because of the time and trouble you caused you should pay the Dentist that did fit the dentures. If we must go to court we will ask for punitive damages as well.

  • Feb 08, 2016, Claiming party added:
  • Dear Sir;

    I erroneously assumed that you were completely apprised of all the facts surrounding the problems with DentFirst. I will email you a complete history of our situation and hope with your new eyes you can help to resolve it. Thanking you in advance for what ever help you can provide.

    Ruth Corsover

What Claimant Wants Hide
1. Damages: cost of new dentures Mar 01, 2016 $40,000.00
2. Refund: dentures that did not fit Mar 01, 2016 $12,500.00
3. punitive d Mar 01, 2016 $125,000.00
4. Other – Copy claim to regulators Mar 01, 2016 $14.99
Cash total : $177,514.99
  • 14
Do you agree with the claimant’s demands?  (If you are a party to this claim, click here.)
Help out — earn RHUcoin
  • Suggest a fair resolution: 5 RHU
  • Yes-vote from community: 5 RHU
  • Yes-vote from disputant: 25 RHU each
  • Get the case resolved: 100 RHU
Dustin Black commented
Dustin Black (Comment):
"And how did dentures cost $40,000.00"
 (9 months ago)
Reply
Dustin Black commented
Dustin Black (Comment):
"What happened to make you seek punitive damages?"
 (9 months ago)
Reply
Evgeny Mishakov commented
Evgeny Mishakov (Comment):
"i don't think so"
 (2 years ago)
Reply
Helena Caballero commented
Helena Caballero (Comment):
"Why did it take so long for plaintiff to file claim? Did she ask for refund in 2015?"
 (3 years ago)
Reply
Christopher MARTIN commented
Christopher MARTIN (Comment):
"You stated that the patient left the dental practice in August 2015. Based on that information, the statue of limitations to take any legal action against the dental practice has already expired. The law states the following; OCGA § 9-3-71(a) provides that “an action for medical/dental malpractice shall be brought within two years after the date on which an injury or death arising from a negligent or wrongful act or omission occurred. A cause of action for breach of contract and/or warranty is subject to the same limitation period. That's the legal side of things on this matter. Aside from that, I absolutely do feel that the patient was done wrong by the dentist facility in question and I definitely do feel the patient should be compensated as a result. Unfortunately in my experience, unless legal action is taken in a matter like this, I wouldn't count on the dentist facility even acknowledging your complaint/claim, much less compensation, refunded or making things right. But I wish you the best of luck."
 (3 years ago)
Reply
Irene Gomez likes
Irene Gomez ():
"Its pretty fair, Doubt they'll get damages but personally I think they deserve them."
 (3 years ago)
Reply
Irene Gomez says maybe M
Irene Gomez ("MAYBE"):
"Is this case resolved? One of the worst I've seen here. Is Dent first still in hiding? Are they still in business?"
 (3 years ago)
Reply
Respondent's Counteroffer Hide
The claimant's settlement terms were rejected with the following explanation:
  • "We are very sorry to hear of any troubles you may have had with your dentist. We will be glad to discuss this with you directly. You can contact us at dharlin@dentfirst.com. "

This claim will remain posted until resolved.

  • 0
Do you agree with the respondent’s Response?  (If you are a party to this claim, click here.)
Help out — earn RHUcoin
  • Suggest a fair resolution: 5 RHU
  • Yes-vote from community: 5 RHU
  • Yes-vote from disputant: 25 RHU each
  • Get the case resolved: 100 RHU
Refresh
  • Show:
  • Sort by:
  • 1
  • Contributed Solution: by Rebecca B On 07-14-2020
    Does the claimant still have needs that have not been met? The health of the claimant should be their first concern. And, if respondent is willing, perhaps that can be addressed and once a solution is satisfactorily performed at no charge and a moderate sum be paid in installments for the horrible situation can be made.
If you are a party to this claim, click here.
Is this a fair resolution?
  • 1
  • Contributed Solution: by Sarah Lascara On 02-25-2020
    Seems like the charges for the treatment are unreasonable. Was any insurance involved? I believe the statute to sue has expired if anything I feel the patient should be refunded all out-of-pocket monies and any money insurance paid be returned to them.
If you are a party to this claim, click here.
Is this a fair resolution?
  • 1
  • Contributed Solution: by Zbigniew Malecki On 12-01-2018
    1. Damages: cost of new dentures Mar 01, 2016 $12,500.00 (up to the amount of unfit dentures) 2. Refund: dentures that did not fit Mar 01, 2016 $12,500.00 3. Punitive d Mar 01, 2016 $12,500.00 (up to the amount of unfit dentures) 4. Other – Copy claim to regulators Mar 01, 2016 $14.99
If you are a party to this claim, click here.
Is this a fair resolution?