The defendant dentist brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' dental malpractice action, arguing there was no genuine issue requiring a trial on causation.
The defendant relied on two Rule 53.03 compliant expert reports stating the dental procedure did not cause the plaintiff's infective endocarditis.
The plaintiffs relied on the opinion of the plaintiff's treating cardiologist, who opined the defendant did not wait long enough for prophylactic antibiotics to take effect.
The court found the treating cardiologist was a 'participant expert' whose opinion was admissible without complying with Rule 53.03.
The court dismissed the summary judgment motion, holding that a trial was required to resolve the competing medical opinions on causation.
