CLAIM AGAINST DENTIST

Dominion, Volume 22, Issue 184, 2 May 1929, Page 13

CLAIM AGAINST DENTIST

EXTRACTION OF GIRL’S TEETH NEGLIGENCE ALLEGED By Telegraph.—Press Association. Auckland, May 1. A claim for £l9B special damages for wages and medical expenses and £5OO general damages was made by Miss Isabella Vera Gwilliam against Arthur M. Carter, a dentist, in the Supreme Court to-day. Plaintiff claimed that while defendant was extracting her teeth in October, 1924, he allowed her to inhale a tooth, and as a result she had suffered great pain, loss, damage and expense, and her health had been seriously affected. For three and a half years she had been entirely prevented from following her usual occupation of apprentice to a boot fitter. The defence was a denial of negligent and unskilful conduct and of al! plaintiff’s other allegations. Counsel for plaintiff said she was a young girl, and in October, 1924, defendant extracted all her teeth at one sitting, a doctor administering a general anaesthetic. Next morning, plaintiff experienced a choking sensation and irritation of the chest. Dr. Murray was called and treated her with medicine for some months. Eighteen months later plaintiff moved to Herne Bay, and there she consulted Dr. Hudson on account of severe haemorrhage. In June, 1927, he advised that she should go to hospital for an X-ray examination, and this she did. There was still no idea of a tooth being on the lung, but the haemorrhages continued. In January, 1928, she felt a hard substance in her throat and coughed up a tooth. Her mother and sister immediately consulted defendant and he expressed his regret and identified the tooth. The plaintiff’s chest trouble appeared to get - better and when a new X-ray plate was taken there was no sign of the dark substance that appeared in the first plate. Counsel said he had failed to get one dentist to give evidence for him, although he approached twelve. Evidence was given by plaintiff, Dr. Murray, Dr. Hudson, Dr. Gwynne (radiologist), and Dr. Graham Lindsay The last-named said that it a portion of a tooth such as that exhibited had been missed by the dentist his checking over must have been faulty. Part of a tooth might slip away unknown to the most careful and experienced officer. Alice Gwillian, mother of plaintiff, described the conversation she had with defendant, in which he said the Ih.rt of tooth must have slipped down unnoticed. He added that it was not his fault. Counsel for defendant submitted that plaintiff had established no case of negligence for defendant to answer, plaintiff’s own witnesses had stated that such a mishap could occur entirely without negligence. Mr Justice Blair said the strongest point of plaintiff’s case seemed to be that there was something to inhale and that part of a tooth had been left behind. He reserved the non-suit point, and asked to hear evidence only in explanation of how the fragment of tooth got in the lung. There was overwhelming evidence, even in Plaintiff’s case, to show that the mere fact of the tooth getting into the lung was not any evidence of negligence. Professor Dodds, Dean of the Dental Faculty of Otago University, identified the tooth exhibited as an anterior root of a first lower molar. He failed to see any evidence of the root having been touched by an instrument at all. It was not’ fully developed, and on account of disease had never come above the surface of the gum. There would be nothing to indicate to the operator that such a root was there. It was quite possible that even with the greatest care such a fragment might reach the lung. Mr. Sullivan, counsel for plaintiff: The success or non-success of this case is important to the Dental Association? „ , Witness: “It is important to all dentists on the register of New Zealand.” Witness said he was aware the Dental Association was behind the case, and admitted that he had come up from Dunedin specially to give evidence. The case was adjourned until tomorrow. ______