DENTAL CASE

Evening Post, Volume CVII, Issue 100, 2 May 1929, Page 8

DENTAL CASE

TOOTH ROOT IN LUNG

QUESTION OF OPERATOR'S CAKE

(By Telegraph.—Press Association.)

AUCKLAND, Ist May. A claim for £19S special damages for wages and medical expenses and £500 general damages was made by Miss Isabella Vcra Gwilliain against Arthur M. Carter, a dentist, in the Supreme Court to-day.

The plaintiff claimed that while the 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 negligont and unskilful conduct and of all the plaintiff's other allegations. Counsel for the plaintiff saia she was a young girl, and in October, 1924, tho defendant extracted all her teeth at one sitting, a doctor administering a general anaesthetic. Next morning the plaintiff experienced a choking sensation and irritation of the chest. Dr. Murray treated her with medicine for some months. Eighteen months later the plaintiff moved to Herne Bay, and there she- consulted Dr. Hudson on account of severe haemorrhage. In Juno, 1927, ho advised that oho 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 the defendant, and ho 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 tho 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 the plaintiff, Dr. Murray, Dr. Hudson, Dr. Gwynue (radiologist), and Dr. Graham Lindsay. Alice Gwilliam, mother of the plaintiff, described the conversation she had with the defendant, in which ho said tho part of the tocth must have slipped down unnoticed. He added that it was not bis fault.

Counsel for tho defendant submitted that the plaintiff had established no case of negligenco for tho defendant to answer. Tho plaintiff's own witnesses had stated that such a mishap could occur entirely without negligence. Mr. Justice Blair said the strongest point of the plaintiff's case seemed to be that there was something to inhale and that part of a tooth had been left behind. He reserved a nonsuit point, and asked to hear evidence only in explanation of how tho fragment of tooth got in the lung. There was overwhelming evidence, even in the plaintiff's case, to show that the mere fact of the tooth getting into tho lung was not any ovidonco oi! 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 sec any evidence of the root having been touched by an instrument at all. It was not fully developod, and on account of diseases had nevor come abovo tho surface of tho gum. There would bo nothing to indicato to the operator that such a root was there. It was quite possiblo that oven with the greatest care- such a fragment might reach tho Jung. Mr. Sullivan, counsel for tho plaintiff: "Tho success or non-success of this case is important to the Denial Association?"

Witness: "It is important to all denlists on tho register of New Zealand." Witness said lie was aware the Dental Association was behind tho case, and admitted that ho had conic from Duncilin specially to givo evidence. The case was adjourned until tomorrow.