Victim appalled that dentist still working

A pensioner who had all her lower teeth removed because of a dentist's blunder is angry that he continues to treat other patients who have no idea of his background.

The 69-year-old was devastated when she went in to have four teeth extracted and ended up having all 14 lower teeth pulled out because the dentist misread instructions.

She later received an unsolicited letter from the dentist apologising for his actions and offering: "If you want, you can extract all my lower teeth without local (I'll help)."

Then the woman was angered to learn the dentist was under supervision by the New Zealand Dental Council at the time and has since been authorised to continue practising.

He has 4000 patients on his books, none of whom know what he did to her or the continuing health issues that have significantly affected his practice.

An interim order imposed last week by Christchurch District Court Judge Murray Abbott prevents identification of the dentist, the region of the South Island in which he lives and works, and his health issues.

The woman won a medical misadventure claim through ACC, but is seeking $50,000 exemplary damages from the dentist, claiming he displayed gross negligence.

She says her court battle is aimed at preventing anyone else suffering the way she has since the bungled November 2002 appointment.

"I'm not doing this for the money. I'm doing this to bring it home to this man," she said. "I am so angry that he is still practising. He will fall to pieces in the end and this will happen to someone else."

The pensioner had a general anaesthetic to have the teeth removed. When she regained consciousness and realised what had happened, she pointed out to the dentist that the computer screen displaying the operation plan showed only four teeth with crosses on them, and the prepared plate with four teeth.

"I was devastated when I learned all my lower teeth had been taken out. I've never had a filling in my life, top or bottom, and it was only because some of my teeth were coming loose that I had to have the four taken out."

She said the letter from the dentist offering to let her extract his teeth as "a gift of healing" annoyed and upset her. But it was learning that the dentist was authorised to continue work that prompted her legal battle.

"I think it's awful that he is still practising. I was told he had sold his practice, but then I rang using an assumed name and was given an appointment in six weeks."

Friday's preliminary hearing was to decide access to information about the case, the venue for the trial, and interim name suppression for the dentist.

The dentist's lawyer, Harry Waalkens, said the man had always accepted he acted negligently, but his actions did not amount to gross negligence, which was the threshold the woman is required to prove to win exemplary damages.

Judge Abbott reserved his decision and suppressed in the interim the dentist's name and details of his health concerns.

- NZPA