Mario E. Delgado

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of a dental malpractice claim.

The plaintiff alleged negligent dental treatment involving implants and extractions but failed to provide proper expert evidence supporting breach of the standard of care or causation.

The court held that professional negligence claims require admissible expert opinion evidence from a qualified professional and that such evidence must comply with Rule 53.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The document relied upon by the plaintiff was not sworn, did not meet expert report requirements, and was therefore inadmissible.

Without admissible expert evidence, the plaintiff’s claim had no reasonable prospect of success.

In a medical negligence action arising from dental treatment, the defendants brought a summary judgment motion seeking dismissal of the claim and argued that an alleged condition described as “geographic tongue” was not caused by any negligence of the treating dentist.

After releasing earlier reasons dismissing the summary judgment motion, the court permitted additional written submissions on whether causation regarding that specific condition should nonetheless be resolved on the motion record.

The court declined to isolate and determine a discrete causation issue at the summary judgment stage.

It held that questions of damages and causation should be determined by the trial judge on a full evidentiary record, including expert evidence.

The action was therefore left to proceed to trial.