.png)
Senior Trial Partner Karen B. Corbett, Partner Elizabeth J. Sandonato, and Senior Associate Joseph P. Ennis obtained Summary Judgment in Nassau County Supreme Court, for MCB’s client, a general dentist, in a case involving a then 57-year-old plaintiff who alleged a failure to timely diagnose and treat temporomandibular joint disorder (“TMD”), as well as the improper extraction of a bottom right rear wisdom tooth, which she claimed caused her to develop temporomandibular joint disorder (TMD), necessitating the extraction of all of her natural teeth and replacement with a full mouth of dental implants. The plaintiff further claimed that she sustained arthritis in her left knee andosteopenia in her left hip as a result of the alleged malpractice.
MCB moved for summary judgment, supported by an affirmation from a general dentist. MCB’s general dentist expert asserted that as a general dentist, MCB’s client properly assessed right rear wisdom tooth as hopeless and determined that that extraction was the only appropriate treatment, as the tooth could not be saved. Moreover, this expert also opined that the plaintiff’s TMD was attributable to a Class III skeletal deformity which was a hereditary condition that could not have been caused or exacerbated by its client’s care; and the expert further opined that MCB’s client promptly referred the plaintiff to a specialist for evaluation and treatment upon presenting with signs of TMD, in accordance with the standard of care. Accordingly, MCB’s client could not have caused and the timing of the referral to a specialist did not exacerbate any of the alleged dental injuries or TMD. Plaintiff opposed the motion with an expert affirmation by periodontist who attested that TMD should have been diagnosed on the first visit with MCB’s client and the delay in referring the patient to a specialist exacerbated her condition necessitating a full mouth restoration.
In granting MCB’s motion, Justice Sher determined that MCB’s expert affirmation made out a prima facie case that MCB’s client did not depart from good and accepted standards of care as a general dentist and did not proximately cause or contribute to the plaintiff’s injuries. The Court found that plaintiff’s expert affirmation was insufficient to rebut that showing because the expert, who specialized in periodontics, did not attest to the standard of care as a general dentist; failed to set forth evidence in support of his opinion that TMD should have been diagnosed on the first visit and that the patient could have averted any injury or treatment had the condition been diagnosed sooner.