WOMAN SUES DENTIST

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 511, 14 November 1928, Page 12

WOMAN SUES DENTIST

PATIENT ALLEGES NEGLIGENCE WAS AN ARTERY SEVERED? f Prom Our Own Correspondent) HAMILTON, Tuesday. Further evidence was heard by Mr. Wyvern Wilson, S.M., this afternoon in the case in which Janet Lymburn, married woman, of Hamilton East, claimed £l2l 19s 6d J. C. Kirkland, a dentist, employed by H. C. Frost, Hamil- ' ton, Ltd., on the grounds of alleged negligence in connection with an operation to plaintiff’s mouth. Mr. A. L. Tompkins appeared for plaintiff and Mr. E. H. Northcroft for defendant. Plaintiff, in reply' to Mr. Northcroft. said it was quite true that she was not asked if an impression should be taken before the denture was fitted. She denied that she had any conversation with Kirkland or any’ dentist on the Monday- following the operation in which she was advised to have an impression taken. After the artery' had been cut she still had confidence ; in Kirkland. On the Saturday and Monday- her health was such that if she wanted it she could have had an impression taken. Proceeding, witness stated that Mr. Hobbins, an assistant dentist, had told I her he could not make a denture when Mr. Kirkland had sent down a mouth like hers. Mr. Northcroft: Doesn’t, it strike you as peculiar Mr. Hobbins should criticise his employer?—No. Mr. Northcroft: Y'ou think Mr. Hobbins probably thought Mr. Kirkland was incompetent?—Yes. Witness said it was a fact that Dr. j Waddell had criticised the stitch in her jaw made to repair the artery. Mr. Kirkland did not say it was unfortunate that Dr. Douglas had to in- | sert a stitch. All previous bills had | been paid by her husband with the exception of Dr. Waddell’s and Mr Yule's. MEDICO’S STATEMENTS Dr. Alexander Ctould Waddell, of Hamilton, said that when lie examined , plaintiff’s mouth in the middle of April : the inner part of her cheek was ad- ] hering to the gum, the effect being that a denture could not be put over | this area. From his examination he could not tell whether the incision had , extended into the cheek. Mr. Tompkins: Have you ever known j dentists to undertake such operations : as incisions? —I cannot say, but 1 don’t see why a dentist should not. Dr. Waddell said Mrs. 'Lymburn . came to him in May and said she ! could get no dentist to fit the plates ! so he told her to have the adhesion j separated. It would be wrong to insert the stitch through the gum. Cross-examined by Mr. Northcroft, Dr. Waddell said the term artery . might mfean a small or large vessel. In the mouth only a small artery was ! concerned. The flow of blood might j be stopped by firm packing. Mrs. Lymburn did not discuss the propriety of going to him while still owing a ; debt to Dr. Fraser. » Mr. Northcroft: Did you criticise the stitch? Witness: I remember telling Mrs. Lymburn that the stitch should not havd been put through the cheek. In reply to Mr. Tompkins witness stated that his operation did not wholly restore the trench formerly' sewn up. Ruskin B. Cranwell, dentist, Hamilton, stated that Mrs. Lymburn consulted him regarding a denture. It was not possible to fit a denture successfully owing to the adhesion of the cheek to the gum. Mr. Tompkins: Do you consider it was dangerous to cut off the growth in that fashion ? Witness: I would use other methods because I consider them safer. . There is always a possibility of coming in contact with arteries or their branches. In the event of an important artery' becoming severed bleeding would take place immediately. However, a sharp shock might cause an artery to break partially if it became punctured. Adhesion would certainly follow such an operation in oral surgery unless steps were taken to prevent it. A. denture was the best substance to prevent adhesion. Further technical evidence was given by Alfred Leslie Yule, dentist, Hamilton, whom plaintiff consulted in April. To remove a fibrous growth he would not make an incision until all other methods had failed. He would do this himself without outside assistance. After the operation to separate the adhesion witness said he experienced difficulties in making a denture, but these were removed when the aftereffects of the operation had passed away. George Bennett Lymburn, painter, Hamilton East, said he accompanied his wife to Frost’s when she went to get the denture made after the operation. He asked Kirkland what guarantee he (Lymburn) had that the teeth would be satisfactory. Kirkland replied that no guarantee was necessary as his firm had a reputation. Mr. Tompkins: What did you reply to that ? Witness: I replied that I thought my reputation for paying was as good as his reputation for making teeth. Cross-examined by Mr. Northcroft, witness replied that his wife said it would have been a painful process for her if the denture had been put in. Mr. Northcroft: I believe in the interview with Mr. Kirkland you and your wife became very abusive. Witness: I don't think so. His Worship: Mrs. Lymburn could not have expressed her anger very well without her teeth. Witness: That is possible. His Worship: At any rate she would have lost her bite? Dr. Thomas C. Fraser, Hamilton, told the court that plaintiff came to him last March. He could not see how an artificial plat© could be worn without the removal of the growth. He recommended that the fold be removed by excision. In his opinion the adhesion could have been avoided. He did not think the removal of the fold necessitated cutting lower than the base of the jaw. The case was adjourned sine die.