Mournet v. Sumner
| Citation | 19 La.App. 346,139 So. 728 |
| Decision Date | 15 February 1932 |
| Docket Number | 13,926 |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana (US) |
| Parties | MOURNET v. SUMNER |
Rehearing Refused March 7, 1932.
Appeal from the Civil District Court, Parish of Orleans, Division "B". Hon. Mark M. Boatner, Judge.
Action by Louis Mournet against Dr. Charles F. Sumner.
There was judgment of dismissal, and plaintiff appealed.
Judgment affirmed.
Henry W. Robinson and Henry M. Robinson, of New Orleans, attorneys for plaintiff, appellant.
St Clair Adams, of New Orleans, attorney for defendant appellee.
This is a suit for damages by a widower against a dentist on the ground of malpractice, which is said to have caused his wife much unnecessary pain and suffering and resulted in her death.
The petition charges the defendant with being at fault in using unsterile instruments in extracting two teeth in the lower left jaw of the patient; in fracturing her jawbone in the process of pulling the teeth and failing to promptly discover this injury by not having an X-ray picture made; in not removing a portion of the root of the molar tooth that broke off and remained in the socket and a spicule of bone that lodged in the soft tissue of the jaw, resulting from the extraction of the molar tooth; and in failing, through lack of skill, care, and diligence, to discover and properly treat a serious infection, which caused pus to form in the sockets from where the teeth were removed, with the result that osteomyelitis and toxemia set in and caused the patient's death.
The defendant denied liability and that he was at fault, and avers that he treated the patient with diligence, care, and skill, and with the proper methods used by dentists in this locality.
There was judgment in favor of the defendant, dismissing the suit, and plaintiff has appealed.
Our appreciation of the facts of the case, as we gather them from the voluminous record, are as follows:
The deceased was a woman about thirty-two years of age, and, because of ill health sought the advice of her family physician in April of 1929. The doctor found that she was anaemic and placed her on a nourishing diet and certain tonics, for the purpose of building up her body resistance and weight. After a number of visits, she responded favorably to the treatment to a slight degree.
Around April 1, 1930, being in a weak condition and pale looking, she returned to the doctor for further examination. He found that she had been suffering additionally from bronchitis, and continued to treat her for anaemia and the bronchial trouble, but without appreciable success, and, not finding any other focus for the trouble, on or about July 9, 1930, advised her to see a dentist for the purpose of determining if there were any infected teeth. She called upon the defendant, who caused X-ray pictures to be taken of all her teeth by the Tulane Clinic. These skiagraphs showed a considerable amount of bridge-work and filled teeth, which work had been previously performed by another dentist. It also appears that there were six abscessed teeth, four in the upper jaw and two in the left lower jaw, consisting of a filled molar tooth and the bicuspid tooth.
On July 14, 1930, defendant extracted the lower left molar tooth, and in doing so administered nitrous oxide as an anaesthetic. The patient reacted very unfavorably to the anaesthetic. In removing the lower left molar, a portion of one of the roots broke off and remained in the socket, as well as a small piece of the jawbone that surrounded the tooth. The defendant discovered that a portion of the root of the tooth had broken off, but did not realize that a fragment of the bone also had done so. He curetted the cavity, and informed his patient that a small portion of the root of the tooth had broken off, but did not attempt to remove it.
Four or five days subsequent thereto he took out the lower left bicuspid tooth, which adjoined the molar tooth previously removed. On this occasion the defendant did not administer the same anaesthetic used in the first operation on account of the patient not receiving it well, but used a local anaesthetic of novocaine by letting it seep into the soft tissue around the tooth, but without injecting it into the gum. After the extraction of the molar tooth, the patient's face became swollen, and the cavity and the region around it were inflamed. This condition became more aggravated when the second tooth was drawn. The defendant treated the patient's mouth with antiseptic washes, syringing and mopping out the cavity with ST-37, sodiphene, metaphene, and stopain. These treatments were administered daily until August 28, 1930.
In the meantime the patient had visited her family doctor on July 22, August 4, August 12, and August 22, 1930. On August 28, 1930, her physician, Dr. Robin, advised that another dentist be called in consultation, because the condition of the jaw, inflammation, swelling, and some pus formation, was not yielding to the treatment administered by the defendant, and was becoming worse. The defendant, when apprised of the physician's opinion, sent the deceased to Dr. Ben Matthews, a dentist, who also does X-ray work in connection with dental cases, for the purpose of having another photograph made of the patient's mouth. Drs. Matthews and Sumner, the defendant, then called upon Dr. Robin and discussed with him this picture. The X-ray was read as showing a small portion of the root of the molar tooth that had broken off still lodged in the socket, with an abscess at the apex of the root and a chipped fracture of the alveolar process, the bone surrounding the tooth, about a sixteenth of an inch thick and approximately one-half inch in length. At that time the patient's mouth was badly swollen and inflamed, but the doctors felt that there was no reason to be alarmed, as she was not running a temperature.
The patient continued her daily visits to defendant's office, where the mopping and syringing of the cavities with antiseptic were continued until about September 4 or 5, when she refused to return. During the above period of treatments the patient was able to walk about, going to and from the doctor's office, and driving her own automobile. From about August 28 to September 8, 1930, the patient expectorated considerable pus, both during the day and at night, and suffered severe pains, and had a swollen condition of the left lower jaw, which caused a protrusion towards the chin and neck.
On September 8, 1930, the patient walked a distance of about four blocks to Dr. Robin's office. The doctor found her to be suffering greatly, and incised the swelling under the chin and drained considerable pus from it. At the same time the lower front teeth were bulging from the swollen and inflamed gums and the doctor removed one of them with his fingers, because it was so loose. Dr. Robin became alarmed, and ordered the patient to the French Hospital.
On September 9, 1930, at 9 o'clock a. m., her husband drove her in an automobile to the hospital, and she walked into the institution and was immediately placed in bed.
A physical examination of the patient by Interne Staley showed that the patient was a well-developed female of about thirty-two years of age, with no abnormalities, but poorly nourished; that her neck and jaw were greatly swollen, and that she was suffering from severe pain in her jaw and the back of her head; that she vomited a great deal during the day; that there was some evidence of a chest cold, or a fluid in the large bronchi; that the heart was not enlarged, and there were no thrills or murmurs; that her temperature was 101 degrees; and that in other respects she appeared to be normal.
The urinalysis showed that there was considerable pus, red blood corpuscles, and coarse granular and hyalin casts in the urine. The blood test showed 26,250 white corpuscles and coagulation time two minutes and fifty seconds.
X-ray pictures were taken the same day by Doctors Menville and Ane. These pictures were read as showing:
The patient spent an uncomfortable night in the hospital, and did not respond very well to the sedatives administered to ease her pain. There was the usual routine preparation for the operation, which was to be performed on September 10, 1930, at 7 a. m.
Dr. Robin had called in consultation Dr. Sidney L. Tiblier, a dental surgeon, who recommended that the patient be placed under a general anaesthetic for the purpose of removing four of the front lower teeth, which had become involved and were protruding, and to make an external incision of the floor of the mouth for the purpose of giving adequate and proper drainage to the infected parts. At 7:15 a. m. the patient was brought into the operating room and ethylene gas administered as an anaesthetic. The patient reacted very badly, becoming blue. She was revived with oxygen and carbon dioxide. During a period of about a half hour, while the anaesthetist was attempting to properly anaesthetize the patient, she turned blue, or cyanosed, three times. In the meantime Dr. Tiblier was able to remove four front teeth with forceps, without much effort, because they were very loose and protruding, due to pus which caused the gums to recede and the teeth to become loose in their sockets. The third time the patient cyanosed she stopped breathing, and for an hour every effort known to medical science was made to revive her without effect, and the patient died on the table.
The attending physician and the dental surgeon provisionally diagnosed the case as osteomyelitis of the lower jaw, a disease which...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Germann v. Matriss
...mouth is regarded as a harbor for an immense number of pathogenic organisms including the tetanus spore. See, E.g., Mournet v. Sumner, 19 La.App. 346, 139 So. 278 (1932); Freche v. Mary, 16 So.2d 213 (La.Ct.App.1944); Morris v. Weene, 258 Mass. 178, 154 N.E. 860 (1927); Nevinger v. Haun, 19......
-
Kozan v. Comstock
...and the physician is liable for a breach of this duty. The cases relied upon by the defendant also are not decisive. Mournet v. Sumner, 1932, 19 La.App. 346, 139 So. 728, was a suit against a dentist for the wrongful death of the plaintiff's wife. The suit was brought under Article 2315 of ......
-
Laclede Steel Co. v. Silas Mason Co.
...So. 435, 11 L.R.A. 361; Savoie v. Walker, La.App., 183 So. 530; Adkins v. New Orleans Railway & Light Co., 2 La.App. 130; Mournet v. Sumner, 19 La.App. 346, 139 So. 728; Riggs v. Standard Oil Co., C.C., 130 F. 199; Standard Oil Co. v. Parrish, 7 Cir., 145 F. 829; Louisiana Oil Refining Corp......
-
Freche v. Mary
... ... dentists is that usually exercised by practitioners in good ... standing", citing Stern v. Lanng, 106 La. 738, 31 So ... In Mournet v ... Sumner, 19 La.App. 346, 139 So. 728, 730, we said: ... "The ... rule is well established that a physician or dentist cannot ... be ... ...