Dr. Bruce Glazer

The defendants brought summary judgment motions seeking dismissal of a personal injury claim arising from a teeth whitening procedure performed by a dental hygienist.

The court held that allegations concerning negligent performance of the procedure required expert evidence regarding the applicable standard of care.

Because the plaintiff failed to provide admissible expert evidence meeting the requirements of Rule 53.03, the claims for negligent performance and breach of contract were dismissed.

However, the court found a genuine issue requiring a trial on whether the plaintiff gave informed consent, as the parties presented conflicting evidence regarding disclosure of the risk of burns.

The court also held that expert evidence was not required to determine whether the material risk of burns had been disclosed, and that the issue of potential vicarious liability of the dentists for any breach of disclosure duty remained for trial.

The applicant was severely injured in a motorcycle accident, resulting in the loss of several teeth.

He sought coverage for dental implants, but the insurer refused, offering only to pay for a removable denture.

The insurer maintained its refusal until the eve of the arbitration hearing, despite receiving multiple reports from the applicant's treating dentists and its own retained experts indicating that implants were reasonable and necessary.

The arbitrator found that the insurer unreasonably withheld the dental benefits and violated the 'pay pending dispute' provision of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The arbitrator ordered the insurer to pay the $25,000 cost of the implants, awarded a $10,000 special award for the unreasonable delay, and ordered the payment of interest on the future expenses from the mid-point of the anticipated treatment period.