The defendant sought leave to appeal an order dismissing its motion for summary judgment in a dental malpractice action.
The primary issues were the admissibility of a treating cardiologist's opinion on causation without strict compliance with Rule 53.03 and whether conflicting expert opinions could be resolved at the summary judgment stage.
The court, applying the principles from Westerhof v. Gee Estate, determined that the treating cardiologist was a "participant expert" whose opinion was admissible.
Given the presence of conflicting medical expert opinions on causation and questions surrounding the defendant's missing dental records, the court found that a genuine issue requiring a trial existed.
Consequently, the motion for leave to appeal was dismissed, and the matter was directed to proceed to trial.
