DENTIST SUED

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 652, 2 May 1929, Page 11

DENTIST SUED

CLAIM FOR £698 PATIENT INHALED TOOTH DENTAL ASSN. INTERESTED Professor Robert Bevan Dodds, dean of the dental faculty of Otago, was called yesterday to give evidence in the GwiliiamCfrter dental case. Witness said the case was of importance to dentists ail over New Zealand. Alleging that she had inhaled a portion of a tooth while having her teeth extracted by Arthur M. Carter, dentist, of Auckland (Mr. R. N. Moody), Isabella Vera Gwilliam (Mr. J. J. Sullivan) proceeded against Cat ter for compensation and damages amounting to £698 at the Supreme Court yesterday before Mr. Justice Blair. Plaintiff alleged that she had been prevented from following her usual occupation tor three and a-half years owing to illness due to the tooth in her lung. It was claimed that Carter had been guilty of negligence in failing to recover and remove the tooth that had been inhaled. Special damages amounting to £l9B Is, comprising £IBO wages for three and a-half years, and doctor’s fees amounting to £lB Is were claimed. In addition, special damages amounting to £SOO were sought. In outlining the case, Mr. Sullivan said plaintiff had been advised to have her teeth removed in 1924, defendant. Carter, performing the operation. Later she suffered from chest trouble necessitating the attention of two doctors. She had trouble with haemorrhages of the lungs. Over three years later she had coughed up the tooth. Mr. Sullivan contended that Carter had been negligent. He should have counted the teeth to make sure nothing was missing. Plaintiff, in evidence, said she had never worked since her teeth were extracted. Cross-examined, she said that after an X-ray photo, the doctors did not say anything about a tooth, but said here was a weak spot at the base of the lung. Medical evidence was called to show that it was possible for the girl’s trouble to have been caused by the tooth slipping into the lung. Carter was considered to be a careful operator. Alice Gwilliam, mother of plaintiff, said she had had a conversation with defendant, in which he said part of the tooth must have slipped down unnoticed. He added that it was not his fault. PROFESSOR DODDS CALLED Mr. Moody said that plaintiff had established no case of negligence for defendant to answer. Plaintiff’s own witnesses had stated that such a mishap could occur entirely without 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 did not see any evidence of the root having been touched by an instrument. In answer to Mr. Sullivan witness admitted the case was of] great importance to dentists ail over New Zealand. He said, further, that he was aware the Dental Association was behind the case, and he had come up from Dunedin specially to give evidence. On resuming' this morning Mr. Sullivan asked that Professor Dodds he recalled. . The question as to the class of tooth found in the lung was raised, Mr. Sul- ; livan requesting Mr. Dodds to produce : a text-book to support his theory that the portion of tooth was the anterior root of a first lower molar. The court instructed witness to search for definite evidence before conThe contention for the defence "W a s that the portion of tooth embedded in the lung was not one of the teeth extracted by Carter. It was below the surface of the gum. The court adjourned to enable Mr. Sullivan to bring evidence tu rebuttal of this statement. On resuming, Mr. oujlivan said he was unable to get such evidence and asked that the case be left so that when the evidence was secured his client could carry on with the claim. He therefore elected to be nonSU His' Honour said it seemed quite hopeless for plaintiff t° get further at the present time. The fact of the tooth being embedded m the gum appeared to relieve defendant of the charge of negligence. Plaintiff would therefore be non-suited.