CLAIM AGAINST DENTIST

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 510, 13 November 1928, Page 17

CLAIM AGAINST DENTIST

WOMAN’S SERIOUS CHARGES REMOVAL OF A GROWTH (From Our Own Correspondent) HAMILTON, To-day. Serious allegations of negligence against J. C. Kirkland, a dentist employed by H. W. Frost, Hamilton. Ltd., were made in the Magistrate’s Court to-day by Janet 1 Nymburn. married woman, Hamilton East. who claimed £l2l J damages from Kirkland. , Mr. Wyvern Wilson presided. Mr. i E. H. No.rtlicroft appeared for the defendant, and Mr. A. L. Tompkins for : plaintiff. 1 In opening Mr. Tompkins said the 1 case involved serious allegations of negligence against the company known as H. W. Frost, Hamilton, Ltd. Plaintiff had a denture which she had used for 20 years. She went to Kirkland, asking for a new plate incorporating the old teeth as the old denture had given every satisfaction. Kirkland examined the mouth and said a new plate could be affixed, but told her 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 dentists and was told the operation could be easily performed. Kirkland commenced the operation on March 29. Plaintiff did not know what instrument was used, but it was probably some cutting instrument. Kirkland bandaged plaintiff’s eyes and applied ' painless.” In spite of thi_s> the patient could feel the pain when the * n ?i rU ( ment en . tered the skin. Kirkland told her o rinse the mouth out and lie down. The operation cost one guinea As soon as plaintiff lay down blood flowed copiously from the the mouth and little could be done to stop a i\ d aSk6d for her to be brought f? on^ e - and he tried to stop the bleeding by pads and forceps, but , : P r - Douglas, who wj called in at Kirkland s request, said “What have you been doing? Have you ever se “ a ’\, art . ery cut like this before.” ,Tim he ,. dOCt ° r stitched the artery with difficulty and stopped the bleeding The ;"' lo ™£>' Saturday Kirkland removed the stitch and plaintiff was asked to C °“?d eV6ry °, ther day ' He told her the thnY.el, heal ‘ng rapidly and she thought the operation had been entirely successful. She went to Dr Waddum Had H° ld hCr that her cheek and oum had been sutched together. The non U evi bth ® jaw and cheek was and lt was impossible to J a denture as it would not grip tht a ,I VI f d her not to attempt to have the denture installed. Kirkland told her it was Dr. Douglas’s fault. However, Kirkland made a denture, but the did not fit. Plaintiff asked * he teeth away for a trial, but Kirkland said she could not have the teeth without the money. Plaintiff sought legal advice, and the matter was explained by her solicitors to Kirkland, who declined to allow the teeth out of the office until the price .the denture. £4 10s. was paid. Plaintiff sought advice from Messrs. Cranwell and Yule, dentists, who both “vl, denture could not be made the operation to separate the cheek from the gum was performed, this was done by Drs. Waddell and Fraser and Mr. Yule. She was in the hospital from March till August. Plaintiff was without any teeth at all In the hospital for seven davs. and was completely incapacitated after each operation. The evidence would show that the incision made by Kirkland was too ~ ep. .in d to ° wl de. Kirkland told plaintiff that he could have stopped the bleeding had he had the right instrumen ts. In the witnesVi box plaintiff said the original denture was made by Mr J A. Young, and had fitted perfectly‘for 20 years. Kirkland called the growth 1 of skin which he wished to remove ‘fungus.” Describing the operation, Mrs. Nvm- * knrn said that. Kirkland bandaged her ' eyes and remarked to the nurse after * the instrument was inserted in her ' mouth, “the attachment is a nuisance as it catches on her chin.'* * 1 The remainder of the evidence was largelv corroborative of counsel’s re 9 * mark. * t (Proceeding)