The self-represented plaintiff brought an action against his former dentist for dental malpractice, battery, and breach of fiduciary duty following a root canal treatment that resulted in a perforated tooth and subsequent extraction.
The court dismissed the claim, finding that the plaintiff failed to provide the requisite expert medical evidence to establish a breach of the standard of care.
Furthermore, the court found that the plaintiff had provided informed consent for the procedures, negating the battery claim, and that the claims relating to the root canal treatment were statute-barred as they were commenced beyond the two-year limitation period.
