Man had teeth pulled without consent, lawsuit claims

A disabled man has filed a lawsuit against a Winnipeg dental office claiming he had four teeth pulled without his consent while he was only partially under anesthesia.

The man, who has autism spectrum disorder and learning disabilities, filed the lawsuit in the Court of King’s Bench earlier this month over the tooth extractions at Greenwoods Dental Centre on McPhillips Street in 2024 and the lasting damages he’s allegedly suffered.

The statement of claim names dentist Dr. Vipulkumar Prajapati, anesthesiologist Dr. Donald Simonson, dental hygienist Kim Anas, two unidentified employees and clinic owner Dr. Dheeraj Kumar Mittal as defendants.

The court filing claims the man, who was 17 at the time, began to develop pain in his teeth in January 2024, so he and his family made an appointment to meet with Prajapati.

On about Feb. 1 that year, Prajapati told the patient he needed two root canals and a cleaning, the court papers say.

The patient said he was afraid of dentists and dental procedures, including the use of needles. The dentist was also advised he’s allergic to antibiotics amoxicillin and penicillin.

“Dr. Prajapati offered to sedate (the patient) with anesthesia, assured (him) that the two root canals and cleaning were medically required, that it was a routine procedure, that no other procedures would occur and that he would not be provided amoxicillin or penicillin given his allergies,” the court claim said.

“Trusting and relying on Dr. Prajapati and his representations, (the patient) agreed to the root canals and cleaning while he was under anesthesia and a referral form was completed for the procedure.”

Prajapati wrote the patient prescriptions for the two antibiotics, despite his allergies, the court papers claim, which a pharmacist later caught and changed.

On Feb. 13, 2024, the patient went to the clinic, where he was subjected to “unauthorized medical and dental procedures,” without his consent or knowledge, the court papers claim. No explanation of why the alleged procedures were performed is included in the lawsuit.

The lawsuit alleges the procedures included the extraction and removal of all four of the patient’s wisdom teeth, forcing a tube down his throat, forcing him to provide a mould of his teeth, giving him amoxicillin despite his allergy, altering a form to misrepresent that he had consented and failing to properly provide anesthesia, meaning he was awake or partially aware during the surgery.

The procedures for which he went to the clinic weren’t completed, the court claim alleges.

The court papers claim none of the professionals provided the patient with proper antibiotics and didn’t take his allergies into account.

The patient screamed in pain during and after the procedure, while he and his parents begged the dental professionals to stop, the court papers allege, but the surgery continued for about five hours.

The patient bled, vomited and cried in pain for several days afterward and the lawsuit alleges he suffered “significant and lasting physical and mental trauma” since the surgery.

The suit claims he was not asked to consent to the surgery, nor was the surgery explained to him.

The court filing references a Manitoba Dental Association regulatory investigation into Prajapati and the incident, reportedly completed on June 30, 2025.

The papers say that investigation found Prajapati did not have consent to extract the patient’s four teeth, that he disregarded the patient’s allergy to penicillin, that he twice billed the patient for examination, that he tampered with the patient’s referral form and that he put the patient at risk.

The regulator’s registrar, Dr. Arun Misra, would not confirm nor deny the existence of the investigation referenced in the court filing.

The association can only publish decisions that stem from formal inquiry panels, said Misra, noting Prajapati has not been subject to such a panel. Prajapati has no current restrictions on his dental licence.

The lawsuit accuses those who worked on the patient of assault, battery, negligence and breach of duty.

The court papers argue the clinic owner and his corporations should be held vicariously liable for the alleged actions of the dental professionals who worked on the patient.

None of the defendants have responded to the claim in court. A lawyer for the clinic did not return a call seeking comment Tuesday afternoon.

erik.pindera@freepress.mb.ca