NEGLIGENCE ALLEGED.

Auckland Star, Volume LIX, Issue 269, 13 November 1928, Page 10

NEGLIGENCE ALLEGED.

DENTIST SUED FOR DAMAGES.

CLAIM BY WOMAN PATIENT.

INSTALLATION OF DENTURE

(By Telegraph—Own Correspondent.) HAMILTON, this day. A serious allegation of- negligence against J. C. Kirkland, dentist, employed by H. W. Frost, of Hamilton, Ltd., was made in the Magistrate's Court to-day, by Janet Nymburn, a married woman, of Hamilton East, who claimed £121 damages from Kirkland as compensation for alleged negligence in operating for the installation of a denture, and for pain and expense born by plaintiff. Mr. Wyvern Wilson presided, Mr. E. H. Northcroft appeared for defendant, and Mr. A. L. Tompkins for plaintiff.

Mr. Tompkins said the case .involved serious allegations of negligence against a company known as H'. W. Frost, Hamilton, Ltd., dentists. Plaintiff had a denture which she had used for twenty years, and she went to Kirk land, asking for a new plate incorporating the old teeth. The old denture had given every satisfaction. Kirkland examined her mouth, and said a new plate could be affixed, but told her that a flap of skin on the lower jaw would have to be removed first. Dr. Fraser advised her to have it removed, so plaintiff returned to the dentist and was told that an operation could be easily performed.

Kirkland commenced to operate on March 29. Plaintiff did not know what instrument was used; it was probably some cutting instrument. Kirkland bandaged plaintiff's eyes aiiH applied "painless." In spite of this the patient could feel paid when the instrument entered her skin. Kirkland told her to rinse her mouth out and lie down. The operation cost one guinea. As soon as plaintiff laid down blood flowed copiously from her mouth, and little could be done to stop it. Kirkland asked her to be brought to him at once. He tried to stop the bleeding by the use of pads and foreepe, but failed. Dr. Douglas was called in at Kirkland's request. He said: "What have you been doing? Have you ever seen an artery cut like this before?" The doctor stitched the artery with difficulty, and stopped the bleeding.

On the following Saturday Kirkland removed the stitch, and plaintiff was asked to come every other day. Kirkland told her the wound was healing rapidly, and she thought the operation had been entirely successful. She went to Dr. Waddell, who told her that her cheek and gum had been stitched together, the cavity between the jaw and the cheek was non-existent, and it was impossible to instal a denture, a3 *it would not grip. He advised her not to attempt to have the denture installed. Kirkland told her it was Dr. Douglas' fault. Kirkland made a denture, but the bottom jaw would not fit. Plaintiff asked to be allowed to take the teeth away for a trial, but Kirkland said she could not have teeth without the money. Plaintiff sought legal advice in the matter, and again saw Kirkland, who declined to allow the teeth out of his office until the amount of the den<ture, £4 10/, had been paid. Plaintiff' sought advice from Messrs. C ran well and Yule, dentists, who both said the denture could not be made until an operation to separate the cheek from the gum had been performed. This was done by Drs. Waddel and Fraser and Mr. Yule in hospital. From March till August plaintiff was without teeth at all. She was in hospital seven days and was completely incapacitated after each operation. Counsel said the evidence would show that the incision made by Kirkland was too deep and ' too .wide. Kirkland told plaintiff that be could have stopped the bleeding had he had the right instruments.

In the witness box. plaintiff said the original denture was made by J. A. Young and had fitted perfectly for 20 years. Describing the operation, Mrs. Nymburn- said Kirkland bandaged her eyes and remarked to the nurse after the instrument was inserted in witness' mouth, "The attachment is a nuisance as it catches on the chin." The remainder of plaintiffs evidence was largely corroborative. (Proceeding.)