.png)
Senior Trial Partner, Charles S. Schechter, Partner Victor Ivanoff and Associate Keleisha A. Milton successfully obtained Summary Judgment, in Queens County Supreme Court, in a case involving a 40-year-old male plaintiff who alleged that MCB’s client, a dentist, was negligent in the placement of dental restorations by utilizing improperly sized cantilevers. The plaintiff further alleged that MCB’s client failed to obtain appropriate diagnostic imaging, including x-rays, and failed to refer the plaintiff to an appropriate specialist. It was claimed that these alleged departures contributed to the plaintiff’s implant failure, and the need for removal and replacement procedures.
A motion for Summary Judgment was filed on behalf of the dentist, supported by an expert Affirmation attesting to the adequacy and propriety of the care provided by MCB’s client before and after the patient’s implant procedure, as well as the client’s placement of the dental restorations.
In support of the motion, MCB demonstrated that the dental restorations were of adequate construction, with appropriately sized cantilevers. MCB demonstrated that its client complied with the standard of care by considering all relevant factors for dental restoration placement, such as the anterior-posterior spread (the distance between the anterior and posterior implants) as a guide to determine cantilever length, ensuring that the cantilevers evenly lined up at the back of the mouth to achieve an even bite and full smile, and for the occlusion, or the pressure created by the patient’s bite, to be focused on the implants rather than the cantilevers. MCB further established that the claimed implant failure was entirely attributable to the plaintiff’s poor pre-existing periodontal condition, as well as his noncompliance with post-operative instructions, including significant delays in follow-up visits.
Plaintiff’s counsel opposed the motion, and filed their own motion for Summary Judgment, arguing that MCB’s client was negligent in causing the implants to fail. The Court found the plaintiff’s expert opinions to be vague, speculative, and conclusory, and therefore insufficient to rebut the defendant’s prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment. Accordingly, MCB’s motion was granted in full, and plaintiff’s motion denied.