TROUBLESOME TOOTH.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVI, Issue 20244, 2 May 1929, Page 17

TROUBLESOME TOOTH.

ACTION AGAINST DENTIST.

FRAGMENT LODGED IN LUNG.

GIRL CLAIMS £7OO DAMAGES

QUESTION OF NEGLIGENCE. On the ground that he had negligently and unskilfully allowed a patient to inhale a portion of a tooth, Arthur M. Carter, dentist (Mr. 11. N. Moody), was proceeded against for damages in the Supreme Court yesterday before Mr. Justice Blair. The plaintiff, Isabella Vera Gwilliam (Mr. Sullivan), 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, damago 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. She claimed £l9B special damages for wages and medical expenses, and £SOO general damages. The defence was a denial of negligent and unskilful conduct, and of all the plaintiff's other allegations. Mr. Sullivan said the plaintiff was a young girl living in Auckland. In 1924, sho was advised by Dr. Murray to have Iter teeth extracted. She visited the defendant Carter in October, 1924, and had all her teeth extracted at one sitting. Dr. Murray administered a general anaesthetic. Next morning plaintiff experienced a choking sensation and irritation of the chest. Dr. Murray was called in, and treated her with medicine for some months. The Tooth Recovered. Eighteen months later, plaintiff moved to Heme Bay and there she consulted Dr. Hudson on account of a severe hemorrhage. In June, 1927, he advised that she should go to . the hospital for an X-ray examination, and this she did. There was still no idea ot a tooth being on the lung, but the hemorrhages 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 Carter, and he expressed his regret and identified thb 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. Before the extraction the plaintiff was an apprentice to a boot fitter, and a claim was being made for wages. The fact of the tooth being in the lung placed tho onus on defendant to show that he had not been negligent. It was his bounden duty, if he was a careful man, to have all the teeth counted over and accounted 1 for at, the close of the operation. If ho had discovered that one was missing he could then have had an X-ray photograph taken, as other dentists did in similar circumstances, Auckland Dentists' Attitude.

"My friend is calling an overwhelming amount of expert evidence, I understand," said Mr. Sullivan in concluding. "I have failed to get one dentist to give evidence for me, although i approached 12. Tfiey were quite charming, but they would not even discuss the matter. They were very sorry for the girl, but they thought defendant was a very charming man, too. It. speaks wonderfully well for defendant's popularity." i'lainliif, in evidence, said that she had had no hemorrhage since she got rid of the tooth in January, 1928. She had been advised to go for a long sea trip, and Dr. Hudson had told her not to return to work for 12 or 18 months. She had never worked sineo she had her teeth out.

Tn cross-examination, plaintiff said that after the X-ray photo the doctors did not sny anything about a tooth, but said that (here was a weak spot at the base of the hi nc;.

Dr. D. X. W. Murray, who gave the anaesthetic to plaintiff, described precautions taken by the defendant to prevent any mishap. It seemed that the tooth must have caused the hemorrhages. It had probably gone down either at the time of the operation or shortly afterwards.

In reply to Mr. Moody, witness said that he did not know any more competent extractor of teeth than defendant. He did not know any respect in which defendant had failed in the operation in question. If a tooth had been carried down bo would expect immediate symptoms of coughing or choking from tho patient. Opinions of Doctors. Dr. J. S. Hudson, who had attended the plaintiff, said lie had formed the opinion that the tooth was inhaled while the patient was under the anaesthetic and getting her teeth extracted. It was difficult to see how a tooth could get into the air passages unknown to a careful operator. Dr. Graham Lindsay said that if a portion of tooth such as that exhibited had been missed by a dentist his checking over must have been faulty. Part of a tooth might slip away unknown to a most careful and experienced officer. An interpretation of X-ray photographs he had taken of tho plaintiff was given by Dr. F. J. Gwynne, radiologist lit Auckland Hospital. In tho light of subsequent knowledge lie diagnosed the presence of a. foreign body, probably part of a tooth, in the lungs. He frequently X-rayed patients for dentists to discover missing teeth. Alice Gwilliam, mother of the plaintiff, described a conversation she had with the defendant, in which ha said that tho part of tho tooth must have slipped down unnoticed He added that it was not his fault. Mr. Moody submitted that plaintiff had established no case of negligence for the defendant to answer. Plaintiff's own witnesses had slated that such a mishap could occur ontirely without negligence. His Honor said that the strongest point of plaintiff's case seemed to be that there was something to inhale, that a part of a tooth had been loft behind. Mr. Sullivan said the defendant had contracted to abstract all tho teeth, but had not done so. Non-suit Point Reserved. After consideration, His Honor reserved the non-suit point and asked to hear evidence only in explanation of how tho fragment of tooth got in tho lung. There was overwhelming evidence even in the plaintiff's case to show that the mere fact of the tooth getting into the lung was not any evidenco of negligence. Professor Robert Bevan Dodds, dean of the dental faculty of Otago University, identified the tooth exhibited as the anterior root of a first lower molar. He failed to see any evidence of tho root having been touched by an instrument at all. It was not fully developed, and on account of disease had never come abovo the surface of tho gum. There would be nothing to indicate to an operator that such a root was there. It was quite possible that even with the greatest care such a fragment might reach tho lung.

Mr. Sullivan: The success or non-suc-cess of this case is important to the Dental Association ?—lt is important to all the dentists on the registei of New Zealand. Witness said he was aware that the Dental Association was behind the case, and admitted that he had come up from Dunedin specially to give evidence. , Mr. Moody will call further evidence this morning.