The Evening critic. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1881-1885, 1882-08-10
GUSHY erosion,
oHrRopoDIsT, ALIAS DENTIST,

CnlhOfODiSTy ALIhS DENIioiJ
Comes Mt "The Critic" with n Card
ON the StOcltstill Case Of Malprac-
ticc, hut His Attempt TO Intimt-
date ~ Met with n Lot OF Cold Facts
which Make His BOtchwOrk on
Young StocksttIl More Horrible
than Mt First Reported -"Still
There's More TO Follow "--We Mean
Facts Against DIR. GrOshOn-MOraI:
Never Put Bur Under the Tail of
an Entcrprisiug Newspaper.
This mornings Republican contains card
from DR.. Groshon, tho Thirtconth-stroct
Dentist whose dental botchwork performed on
young Frank Stockstill THE CRITIC OF Tuesday
chroniced Here 1t Is.
can article appeared in yesterdays EVENING
CRITIC entitled 'Malpractico-Dr. Groshon's
Bad Botchwork,' which is so grossly untrue as
to tho facts OF my work as q dentist, and 80
carelessly libelous, to say the least, that ask
the privilege in your columns of making
brief statement OF tho facts In tho case referred
TO by THE CRITIC.
"Mr. Frank stockstill camo to my ofiice some
four or Ave months ago to have his teeth
treated and filled. had dono dental work
e Srn Of Mr. teeth treated snd
filled successfully. Two teeth, however, In
tho upper Jaw were badly. decayed. At first
nlllng them. At his request examined and
as them Them T semS days. S PSsaS SS
and recommended him to have
them extracted. As 1t was caso when
an annsthetic was desirable recommended
him TO go TO some other dentist who used gas
do not use 1t In my ofice-and have both
teeth extracted. He left me for that purpose.
A few days afterward 1 met Mr.. stockstill. He
told me that the dentist to whom he applied
had extracted one OF the tooth, and had put
q preparation on cotton IN the other, say.
touch his teeth again, but cautioned him
against exposure so soon after having q tooth
extracted, and wo parted pleasantly. No com.
plant was ever mado by him to me as TO any
part OF my treatment OF his teoth."
| DR.. Groshon's card is not denial OF the
charges of malpractice THE CRITIC made, but
| but is an adroitly worded mako shift. He
| pronounces, In tho outset, THE CRITICS &C.
count OF the horrible case as being libelous,
and then, by evasions, acknowledges, indi-
tctly, the most potent charges made.
| The EFFORT Of tho card is to transfer tho 70.
sponsibility of the case to other and innocent
| parties, and to detract attention from tho hor-
rors of tho case by intimidation in the intro
ductory of his card. Tho readers Of THE
CRITIC, without reading the faulty card, might
take 1t for q granted fact that DR.. erosion de-
MES none OF the charges made, and that
"The Critics" Account Is Unim-
peached.
1
investigate the facts In this most remarkable
and unparalleled case Of dental malpractice,
and the result OF the work may be condensed
into tho statement made several times by
parties familiar with the facts: "rHE
CRITICS criticisms were not in the least
sevore, considering the facts"
| Frank Stockstill, the victim, was found at his
homo on Eighth street. He had Just under
gone dressing OF his wound, but said he was
snsd better sw th Snvs nc Ga
father was present. The family had read tho
card in the Republican this morning. From
statements made by tho father, mother and
Tuesday may DO
Reiterated with TwO.Fold Posi-
tiveness.
There was not an adjective or other descrip
two syllable used, that made the case terrible
| that should BIO Withdrawn. DR.. Dyer pro
nounced the structures Of THE CRITIC, indeed
| mild In the face Of the facts. Several dentists
and physicians OF this city have examined the
features Of the case, and pronounce the job OIL
dental sntchery horrible In the extreme ,S ,,
tooth by DR.. erosion, 1t was ascertained, wai
done with hand'drill, which made the worl
lively that the drilling which punctured tn,
jawbone was done by DR.. Groshon; that tn,
cotton inserted into the tooth cavity and
which worked through his face and out at thu
nose was the work Of DR.. droshon that the In
fiammation in his face, the setting Of his Jaw,
| and
All the AgOnies He Has Suffered
| are the results OF the work OF DR.. erosion
and tho case is really more painful, more
dangerous and more in the line of malprac
| tice and dental butchery than THE CRITIC ha!
| heretofore pictured It. This conclusion Il
also that of the father OF the patient, and thos
| who have seen him.
DR.. Groshon visited young stockstlll OF
Tuesday evening, after THE CRITIC appeared
and censured tho family for giving TO Thu
press the facts of the case. 1t is stated that HI
not only complained bitterly to the family
| nttt ant nod IN
, | ate, eviscerate and generally annihilato tn
. reporter who wrote the truthful report Of tn
Assurances DOubIy Sure.
THE CRITIC reporter, after being reassure
by statements from the Stockstill family, DR.
, Dyer and others that the statements hereto
visited the Drs. Thompsons, well.known an
reputable dentists on Pennsylvania avenue
I between Eleventh and Twelfth streets. Tn
, Frank stockstill had called upon hir
, for treatment. of his teeth. som
/ time after ho had received trea
the tooth Dr. erosion had jagged 80 cruell
, with adrill. He found the nerve dead, an
: the deposit Of cotton made by DR.. erosion 9TH
: cotton was then performing circuit upwar
through the flesh, as heretofore stately ID
!, Thompson inserted some cotton saturate
with carbolic acid TO preserve the tooth. II
. put nothing into the tooth that could hay
caused the Inflammation, and certainly
= Did Not Use Arsenic.
a | DR.. Thompson found the cotton he placed
: | the tooth at tho time when he subsequently o.
i, | tracted II. 1t was the cotton decoction place
4 | In the tooth by DR.. erosion; therefore, thu
!. | came out OF the noso OF the patient and r
n suited in the Inflammation. Tho Doctor ha
read THE CRITICS statement OF tho case an
| pronounced 1t true-everv particular. Ho ht
u charge OF the dental part OF the case noy
" and believes from examinations mao
o that the work OF DR.. Grosho
9 would have constituted malpractice even
" Inflammation and the other serious featur,
,, had not resulted. Tho work with the drill, |
o believes, is not that OF q man who should
u permitted to practice dentistry.
ID These are the cold facts, dispassionate
stated, as Cleaned from some OF tho persoi
informed. Other facts, more in detail, are
possession OF THE CRITIC, but they Will
covered by statement in preparation by d
}. Thompson.
|