Grateful.

-
For the past few days, i did 4 fillings for my teeth Klinik Pergigian Kelana Jaya with the letter from Whitesmile. Thanks Whitesmile for that letter and thank you Dr Manjit Kaur for helping me.

Altogether i did fillings in 37 occlusal which is the one in front of the wisdom tooth of the lower left side, 47 occlusal which is also in front of the lower right side's wisdom tooth, 46 buccal and occlusal which is the one in front of 47 and 48 occlusal which is the lower right side's wisom tooth.

So now i am sure you guys can imagine roughly where's the tooth right?

Paying 43 bucks for all the 4 teeth is still somehow cheaper than those private clinic.

Thank God.

And i just got called by my intership for an interview. Happy.

I have to keep moving forward.

Yes. It's important to move forward everyday.



Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Law of Torts: Case Study #1 Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932)

-
Before analyzing the principles of negligance, here's some simple definition to some legal words to make it easier to understand : 1.Negligance- action taked by the defendent that causes foreseeable danger or injury to another. 2.Duty of care- a moral or legal obligation to ensure the safety or well-being of others. 3.Precedent- an earlier event or action that is regarded as an example to be considered in subsequent similar circumstances. Fact of the case: Mrs Donoghue drank a bottle of ginger beer given by her friend. A decomposing remain of a snail was discovered inside the bottle. She fell ill and was diagonsed with gastroenterities. A legal action was then taken against Mr David Stevenson, the manufacturer of ginger beer. This case established the modern concept of negligance in the English Law. Principles: (important elements from this cas e) 1. Negligance - House of Lords affirmed that negligance is a tort. (Negligance was accepted as a separate tor...
Read more

Law of Torts: Case Study #2 Anns v. Merton LBC (1978)

-
Principle of pure economic loss Fact of the case: The claimants were the tenants/leaseholders in a block of flats. The flat suffered some structural defects ranging from cracks on the walls, slopping of floors and subsidence due to inadequate foundations which were 2ft 6ins deep instead of 3ft deep as required. The council was responsible for inspecting the foundation during the contruction of the flats.The claimants sued the Merton LBC instead of the builder as they saw the council having more financial resources in terms of paying out the damages. The claimants based their claim on two reasons: (a) the council's negligence in approving the plans of the properties (b) council's failure to inspect at the time of construction The claimants initial hearing failed as the action was only taken six years after the sales of flat. It was successfully appealed that action could only be taken when it was discovered. The claimants won the lawsuits as the House of Lords and ...
Read more