On a summary judgment motion in a dental negligence action, the court held that conflicting expert opinions on standard of care and causation raised a genuine issue requiring a trial as against one dentist.
The plaintiffs had adduced expert evidence criticizing the decision to replace four restorations at one appointment, while the moving party relied on competing expert evidence supporting the treatment as within acceptable clinical judgment.
The court declined to resolve that evidentiary conflict on the motion and found a fair and just adjudication required viva voce expert evidence at trial.
However, the court granted summary judgment dismissing the claim against the other dentist, finding the record established only an independent contractor relationship and no basis for vicarious liability.
