Jerome J. Siegel, DDS Inc.

See attached documentSeptember 22, 2015Re: Complaint # [redacted] Revdex.com 1 E4" Street Suite 600 Cincinnati, Ohio 45202Dear [redacted],This patient received root canal treatment of tooth #15 on 10-14-2012 and was referred again for evaluation and possible treatment of the same tooth since the...

crown and part of the tooth as well as the crown had come off. The patient was seen and treated 5/19/15. The treatment plan was to provide a new post and core so a new crown could be placed. The treatment on that date consisted of removal of the remaining fractured core, electrosurgical exposure of the tooth and microscopic examination. The microscopic examination revealed extension of the crack, discovered when the tooth was originally treated, into the root structure apical to the surrounding bone structure and a periodontal pocket on the exterior of the root. The condition condemned the tooth to be non-restorable and needing to be extracted. The tooth was temporized and the patient and his referring dentist were informed of the hopeless situation. The procedure time was over 1% hours and the patient was billed $273.00 for the treatment. The patient was always informed that the fracture line discovered 10/14/2012, which was not of severity to condemn the tooth at that time had migrated into the root structure causing fracturing of the tooth structure, breaking of the intra-coronal core and loosening of the crown. Fracture lines are an inherent weakness of the tooth and can possibly worsen with time, causing breaking and failure. The patient was informed of the treatment provided and potential risks. The patient signed a General Consent Form which states “root canal therapy though having a high degree of clinical success is a biological procedure and therefore cannot be guaranteed. A tooth which has had root canal therapy may require retreatment, surgery, or even extraction.” The dentist providing the treatment has no control over the forces applied to restorations when the tooth is in function.The basic facts are that the patient was referred for evaluation and possible treatment of this tooth. The treatment was provided in the most conscientious and thorough manner but the diagnosis and recommendation was not as he wished and he wants me to take responsibility for a situation over which I have no control. I believe this complaint is unfounded and unwarranted. The patient is financially responsible for charges made for the treatment provided.Sincerely Yours,**Jerome J. Siegel, D.D.S.

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
I can't accept a response that is based on falsehoods.  Dr. Siegel offers a series falsehoods in his response, and it seems their purpose is to try to confuse in order to avoid the actual issue in my complaint.  Falsehood #1 - In the first sentence, he omits the build-up that he did along with the root canal.  He pretends it never happened.  My complaint to the Revdex.com wasn't about the root canal, yet he focuses solely on this and doesn't respond at all to my complaints, which anyone reading my complaint with an intention to understand it and not to obfuscate will clearly see it is about the substandard build-up, which failed and caused the crown to come off.  His quote later in the letter from the General Consent Form talks about me being warned about the risks of the root canal.  Once again trying to muddy the waters, change the subject.  I challenge Dr. Siegel or the Revdex.com to find any place in my complaint where I state the root canal was the problem.  I clearly stated that the build-up done in conjunction with the root canal.Falsehood #2- "the microscopic examination revealed extension of the crack, discovered when the tooth was originally treated."  On my recent visit, Dr. Siegel said nothing of he crack being previously discovered. Nothing. Quite the contrary.  He stated that the crack had likely been caused when the crown came off. The crown came off when the build-up sheared off in 2015. Falsehood #3- "The patient was always informed that the fracture line, discovered 10/24/12 ... had migrated into the root structure causing fracture of the tooth structure."   Not true.  On my recent visit, Dr. Siegel stated that the crack had likely been caused when the crown came off (2015).  The letter states that the "fracture line discovered 10/14/2012".  This is a lie.  The fracture was discovered by Dr. Siegel on my recent visit in 2015.  I find one of the concluding statements very revealing "he wants me to take responsibility for a situation over which I have no control" .  Really, you have NO control over whether the build up, which is critical to the crown staying on, holds?   I know that you don't make a habit of telling your patients that you have NO control over whether the work you do lasts a day, a minute or a year, while you are working on their teeth.  You wouldn't have many patients.  There is an implicit understanding that you are charging a lot of money for a specialized service in which you have expertise and that it will last a reasonable amount of time.  There is not the slightest possibility that you (or your assistant) did something in putting it in that caused it to not have much longevity? Take a little responsibility.  I have taken responsibility for paying you for a root canal and a build-up.  I haven't asked you for that money back.   You got a good chunk of money from me. Up until this complaint, I didn't ask for anything but for you to waive the couple hundred dollars in fees for the last consultation, where you told me the bad news, so that I would feel that you took a little responsibility for your work.  I never figured that you would pay $2000 of the $4000 that it would take to replace the tooth now, but I wanted to put that request in the Revdex.com complaint to make the point that me losing this tooth is kind of a big deal.  Some dentists, like my family dentist, would feel badly enough about this situation,  and feel enough responsibility that maybe their work didn't hold up, that they would at least make that gesture.  I can't help but think that if you put as much energy into your work as you do into making sure that you get every last dime that you think is owed to you, that maybe my crown would still be in my mouth.
Regards,
[redacted]