M. Gregg Abogado

The plaintiff sued her dentist for negligence and lack of informed consent following a wisdom tooth extraction that led to a severe facial space infection.

The plaintiff alleged the dentist failed to meet the standard of care by not taking updated X-rays, injecting local anesthetic near the infection, not referring her to a specialist, and not extracting an opposing tooth.

The court found that the plaintiff provided informed consent and that the dentist met the standard of care.

The court accepted expert evidence that the infection was brewing prior to the extraction and that the extraction likely mitigated its course.

The claim was dismissed.

The defendants brought a motion for a mistrial during trial, alleging prejudice from a newspaper article and improper conduct by plaintiffs' counsel.

The court dismissed the mistrial motion, finding no real danger of prejudice as no jurors had read the article, and that appropriate judicial instructions could cure any potential harm.

The court also ruled on the admissibility of the plaintiffs' expert evidence regarding dependency loss, specifically allowing a scenario based on career advancement despite some foundational facts not being fully proven, emphasizing that the weight, not admissibility, of expert testimony is affected by unproven facts.

The defendants sought leave to appeal a costs order made by Corkery J. following a settlement.

The underlying issue concerned whether costs and disbursements ran to the date of service of the settlement offer or the date of acceptance, impacting costs accumulated over a two-month period.

The court dismissed the application for leave to appeal, finding that the defendants did not meet the grounds under Rule 62.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, as there were no conflicting decisions on principles of costs interpretation and no good reason to doubt the correctness of the original order.

The defendant moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's dental malpractice claim.

The court found genuine issues for trial regarding the standard of care and causation, citing conflicting expert opinions and factual disputes, particularly concerning the defendant's discovery evidence.

The motion for summary judgment was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the plaintiff.