![]() Gallant created the treatment plan, including developing a surgery guide, taking bite models, and installing prostheses Winston performed the extraction and implant surgeries.īased on his examination of MacDowell, Gallant confirmed that she needed a full mouth prosthodontic reconstruction, and he developed a course of action that would involve several procedures over a year or more. Gallant and Winston are in different practices, and they each performed different aspects of MacDowell's dental treatment. Mollie Winston, an oral surgeon, for treatment. In February or March 2006, Braswell referred MacDowell to Gallant, a general practitioner with a specialty in prosthetics, and Dr. In February 2006, Braswell examined MacDowell and identified several problems with MacDowell's teeth. ![]() She initially sought help from at least two dentists and was referred by one to Dr. Viewed under this standard, the record shows that MacDowell had a series of problems with her teeth. A de novo standard of review applies to an appeal from a grant of summary judgment, and we view the evidence, and all reasonable conclusions and inferences drawn from it, in the light most favorable to the nonmovant. Summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Specifically, she challenges the trial court's ruling that MacDowell's consultation with an oral surgeon working with Gallant ended the tolling caused by Gallant's fraudulent concealment of her cause of action. MacDowell argues that the trial court erred by ruling that she filed her action outside of the two-year statute of limitation. Gallant, D.D.S., P.C., in her suit alleging dental malpractice. Ursula MacDowell appeals from the grant of summary judgment to Dr. Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court erred by ruling otherwise. In this case, Winston could not provide a second opinion as to the work that she and Gallant were performing together. The purpose of seeking a second opinion is to overcome the alleged fraud that deters the patient from discovering the true facts. Therefore, by consulting with Winston, MacDowell cannot be deemed to have sought an independent medical opinion such that she reasonably could have discovered her cause of action. Further, as a treating doctor, Winston was not in a position to provide a second opinion as to the procedures that she herself executed as a team with Gallant. Winston was one of MacDowell's original treating physicians and was the very practitioner who allegedly placed the implants incorrectly. We conclude that the trial court erred by ruling that MacDowell's visits to Winston ended the tolling period.Winston again saw MacDowell in January 2008, and discussed her problems. Gallant continued to make several more adjustments over several more office visits in November 2007 through January 2008. Winston told MacDowell that her reconstruction process was taking too long, and after taking some measurements, Winston told MacDowell that her reconstruction was too narrow. Gallant performed several adjustments, and in November 2007, Gallant sent MacDowell to Winston for examination of MacDowell's tongue and mouth due to MacDowell's continued problems. MacDowell complained to Gallant in February 2007 that her tongue overlapped her teeth such that she could not chew without biting her tongue. Ultimately, MacDowell's prosthetics were misaligned and did not perform as desired. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |