DENTIST’S ALLEGED NEGLIGENCE.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 2517, 2 June 1909, Page 6

DENTIST’S ALLEGED NEGLIGENCE.

£5Ol CLAIM FOR DAMAGES

[Pek Piikss Association.]

WELLINGTON, June 1. A claim for £6Ol damages for bodily harm alleged to have resulted from a dental operation was brought before Mr Justice Cooper and a special jury of twelve yesterday -afternoon by Rose Galvin, spinster, against Thomas EdAvard Knight Burgess, dental surgeon, Wellington. Mr Gray, Avith him Mr O’Regan, appeared for the. plaintiff; Mr Skcrrett, K.C.. Avith him Mr JStout, for the defendant. It was alleged in the statement of claim that on the 9th May, 1907, the plaintiff had 28 teeth extracted by the defendant in his surgery. In the course of the operation ,tlie statement alleged, the defendant so negligently and unskilfully extracted the said teeth that in the process he aloAved one to fall into the plaintiff’s Avind-pipe, and become lodged in her left lung, in consequence of which her health became seriously impaired, and slie ay- as compelled for a long time to relinguish her employment as a domestic servant, and also to procure a social dietary, and pay for medical attendance. lne statement of defence denied any negli-o-once or unski)fulness in extiactmg the teeth, or that in the process he allowed one of them to fall into the plaintiff’s Avind-pme and become lodged in her lung. rf • „ Mr Gray opened the case, amplifying the allegations mentioned in the statement of claim. Mr Burney on consultation, had recommended that tho whole of plaintiff’s teeth should he re moved and a new set installed. On the 9tli May the defendant extracted all the teeth and stumps except four. Durin" the process of extraction a tooth "was inhaled and lodged in her wind-pipe. From being a strong, lea - thv crirl in a feiv months she run down into'such a condition that she was considered to be in a decline. She developed a very distressing cough and on consulting a doctor she was adv'ised to o-ive up her employment and go to tne West Coast. Instead of administering on anaesthetic, such as- ether or clilo.roform ,the defendant gave her laughing "as She rallied after the tAventy-sixth extraction, and had the remaining two taken out Avhon she was conscioiis. one was subsequently very ill. On 26th February. 1908, she coughed up a tooth. Continuing, counsel said the plaintiff went to consult a doctor, l'or a long time light employment was even too much for her. and it Avas not until April 1908. that her health came back. The plaintiff was then residing with her sister on the West Coast. It Ava, there in February, 1908. that she got rid of the tooth. Mr Gray in conclusion, said that evidence ot an export nature Avould be brought to slioav that it was most dangerous to extract as many as 25 teeth under langhmg gas. The point Avas that Mr Burgess Avas not assisted bv a medical attendant to administer a, suitable anaesthetic The influence of laughing gas was not! of sufficient duration for a Ion" series of extractions. It was certain that Miss Galvin had carried the missing tooth for 10 months until she coughed it up. The defendant declared that he had counted 28 teeth extracted. The allegation of negh"ence was in short that Mi Burgess had adopted for a long operation lau"liing gas instead 1 of a lieaA iei an aesthetic properly administered by a. medical man. Evidence was then taken and Avas not concluded when the Court rose.