DAMAGES CLAIM FAILS

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 516, 20 November 1928, Page 16

DAMAGES CLAIM FAILS

ACTION AGAINST DENTISTS NO ACT OF NEGLIGENCE (From Our Own Correspondent) HAMILTON, Monday. Judgment for the defendant was given by Mr. Wyvern Wilson, S.M., in the Magistrate’s Court today in the case in which Mrs. Janet Lymburn, of Hamilton (Mr. A. L. Tompkins) sought to recover £l2l 19s 6d damages from H. W. Frost (Hamilton), Ltd., dentists, Hamilton, and J. C. Kirkland, dentist, Hamilton (Mr. E. H. Northcroft), in the Hamilton Magistrate’s Court. Mr. Kirkland, continuing his evidence, described a heated interview between Mrs. Lymburn and himself at the fitting «,£ the denture. She complained that she had been badly treated and he would not allow her to take the denture away without payment. Witness emphasised that the stitch which had been inserted by Dr. Douglas had no bearing on the adhesion. He had had three months’ practice under Mr. Frost after leaving the dental school bet ore coming to Hamilton in March last. He had warned Mrs. Lymburn that unless she had the denture in quickly adhesion would take place, but she said the doctor had advised against its being fitted before the wound healed. Ho could have made a reasonably successful plate even with the adhesion.* He guaranteed satisfaction and would have given it. John Norman Rish worth, surgeon dentist, Auckianu, said he specialised in oral surgery. There was no reason why a dentist should not have removed the growth from Mrs. Lym burn’s mouth. The subsequent treatment was quite proper. Witness saia aeiendant’s action m calling m an eminent surgeon like Dr. Dougias to stop me bleeding was quite a reasonable, precaution.

The magistrate remarked that witness worn a nave had more tact than to have accepted the plaintiff’s statement that her doctor had advised her not to have a denture fitted until the gum had healed.

The Witness: 1 would have had an impression taken before she left the room.

Li. Hugh Dougias said he was called to arrest a bleeding artery in plaincut s moutn on iviarcn 2y. Tne step ne tooK to stop tne bleeding couid not possioiy nave caused the subsequent adhesions.

xnomas Joseph Tanner, dental surgeon, Auckland, said the immediate application of a denture after the operation "would have prevented the adhesion. If the patient declined to have the denture applied there was nothing the dentist could do to prevent adhesions.

The magistrate said that plaintiff claimed damages on two grounds, the

first being that defendant performed ] the operation negligently and unskilfully, and the second, that he was negligent in failing to treat the wound properly. The mere fact of severing the artery was not an act of negligence. Plaintiff had gained a mistaken idea that her cheek had been joined to her jaw. That had not occurred. It was clearly the intention of the defendant Kirkland to keep the wound open so that he could fit a denture within a week. Defendant tried to have a denture fitted, but plaintiff would not 16t him do it. The use of a pad was not a recognised practice, continued the magistrate. Had more self-control and tact been shown by both sides at the close of the transaction and had plaintiff been allowed a trial with the teeth they might have proved satisfactory and the case w*ould have been avoided. Defend ant could not prevent the adhesions from occurring owing to plaintiff’s refusal to have the denture fitted. The magistrate found that plaintiff had failed to satisfy the court that there had been negligence in defendant’s action in choosing to operate, in carrying it out and in treating the wound afterwards. Judgment was given for defendants with £l7 costs and expenses. Security for appeal was fixed at £4O.