Narrative Opinion Summary
The case involves an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court of Onondaga County, which denied the motion for summary judgment by the defendant, a dentist accused of malpractice. The plaintiff alleged injuries from the defendant's negligence for failing to remove dental packing or foreign material after surgery conducted in August 2000, with the lawsuit filed in November 2008. The defendant argued that the action was barred by the statute of limitations and that he adhered to accepted dental standards. However, the court affirmed the lower court's decision, noting that the malpractice claim was timely filed within one year of the plaintiff discovering the foreign object. Furthermore, the defendant did not adequately establish that the surgery conformed to professional norms, primarily due to his lack of recollection and general procedural evidence. The court also found that the plaintiff's expert testimony raised a triable issue of fact, further supporting the denial of summary judgment. Consequently, the appellate court upheld the denial without costs, allowing the case to proceed to trial on the merits.
Legal Issues Addressed
Standard of Care in Dental Malpracticesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The defendant failed to demonstrate that the surgery was performed in accordance with accepted dental practices, due to a lack of recollection and insufficient evidence.
Reasoning: Additionally, the defendant was unable to demonstrate that he performed the surgery according to accepted dental practices. His lack of recollection about the specific surgery, combined with insufficient general procedural evidence, failed to establish his compliance with professional standards.
Statute of Limitations for Malpractice Claimssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court determined that the defendant did not meet the initial burden to prove the malpractice claim was time-barred, as the plaintiff filed within one year of discovering the foreign object.
Reasoning: The court concluded that the defendant did not satisfy his initial burden regarding the statute of limitations, as the malpractice claim is allowed to be filed within one year of discovering the foreign object or facts leading to its discovery.
Triable Issues of Fact in Summary Judgment Motionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The plaintiff's expert testimony created a triable issue of fact, which justified the denial of the defendant's motion for summary judgment.
Reasoning: Even if he had met his burden, the plaintiff's expert testimony introduced a triable issue of fact, justifying the denial of summary judgment.