Monica Zamfir

In a dental negligence action, the defendant objected to the plaintiffs' expert report from Dr. Yanney, arguing it contained opinions on surgeries performed in 1991, which were not pleaded as negligent in the Statement of Claim.

The court agreed that the expert cannot offer opinions on matters not before the court for adjudication.

The plaintiffs were directed to obtain a new report from Dr. Yanney limited to the defendant's treatment from 2012 onwards.

Four patients who received Vitek Proplast Teflon Interpositional implants in their temporomandibular joints in the mid-1980s sued St. Joseph's General Hospital and oral surgeons for injuries caused by the defective implants.

The appellants settled with the oral surgeons and obtained Pierringer Orders.

Three actions were dismissed as statute-barred under the Public Hospitals Act's two-year limitation period.

One action (Hearsey) proceeded to trial.

The trial judge found the hospital 5% at fault, the oral surgeons 20% at fault, the manufacturer 50% at fault, and the distributor 25% at fault, limiting recovery to 5% of damages.

The appellants appealed, challenging the limitation period findings, the rejection of a duty to recall, and the apportionment to non-parties.

The hospital cross-appealed on the limitation period and costs.

This dental malpractice action involved two summary judgment motions based on limitation periods.

The defendant dental surgeon, Dr. Harper, argued the action was time-barred by the one-year limitation period in the Health Professions Procedural Code.

The defendant Hospital relied on the two-year limitation period in the Public Hospitals Act.

The court dismissed Dr. Harper's motion, finding a genuine issue for trial regarding the plaintiff's discoverability of biological hazards.

However, the Hospital's motion was granted, as its limitation period was not subject to discoverability and had expired years before the action was commenced.