Man's case against dentist dismissed by High Court

THE HIGH Court has dismissed an action by a man who claimed he suffered injuries as a result of alleged negligent dental treatment…

THE HIGH Court has dismissed an action by a man who claimed he suffered injuries as a result of alleged negligent dental treatment.

PJ Molumby (49), Thurles, Co Tipperary, had sued Liam Tuohy, a dentist, of The Mall, Thurles. The allegations arose following extraction of a tooth from Mr Molumby’s upper jaw on October 2nd, 2000.

In his judgment yesterday, Mr Justice John Quirke found Mr Molumby had failed to establish negligence on the part of the dentist and dismissed the claim.

The judge noted, in evidence, that Mr Molumby had acknowledged he had a history of tooth extraction and was a heavy smoker before he first consulted Mr Tuohy on September 22th, 1998, about toothache.

READ MORE

Mr Molumby had acknowledged earlier dental treatment was provided to him by another dentist who had extracted a number of teeth. Mr Molumby had attended the other dentist for about four or five years.

Mr Molumby gave evidence that, within a week or two after the extraction, he noticed his mouth was foul-smelling and he began to suffer symptoms including significant pain in the area of the extraction, bouts of vomiting and headaches.

Mr Justice Quirke said Mr Molumby was “a poor historian” concerning the relevant events after the extraction. While this may have been due to the elapse of more than 10 years since, Mr Molumby was also inconsistent and his recollection unreliable and faulty in several respects. Mr Molumby attended the dentist on about 10 occasions between September 1998 and October 2000 for various dental difficulties, the judge said. Some teeth required filling, others extraction and seven teeth were missing when he attended on October 2nd, 2000.

He had continuing periodontal gum disease, was advised to attend a hygienist. His history of oral hygiene appeared to have been unsatisfactory, the judge said.

When he attended the defendant on October 2nd, he was complaining of a severe toothache and was anxious the tooth should be extracted, the judge said. A clear conflict of evidence existed between experts for the plaintiff and defendant on issues, he noted.

The judge concluded on the evidence Mr Molumby had failed to prove Mr Tuohy was negligent in allegedly not asking him to return for review after the extraction.

Mr Tuohy had said in uncontradicted evidence he did request Mr Molumby to return in the event of suffering symptoms arising from the extraction and Mr Molumby may have been confused and his recollection faulty about appointments and visits, he said. In all the circumstances, he was not satisfied Mr Molumby had proved Mr Tuohy failed to react properly and speedily to Mr Molumby’s complaints after the extraction.