[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
I. INTRODUCTION
On October 24, 2017 Plaintiff Margaret Duran filed an action against defendant Ismail I. Elsherif, D.D.S. (“Defendant”) for negligence relating to dental care she received from April 2009 through October 24, 2016. Defendant moves for summary judgment on the grounds that there is no triable issue of fact respect to the standard of care provided in connection with Plaintiff’s care. No party opposed the motion.
II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
From April 2009 to October 24, 2016, Plaintiff received dental treatments from Defendant. (Undisputed Material Fact (“UMF”) No. 1.) Plaintiff was first seen by Defendant in April 2009, when she was diagnosed for root canal treatments, gum treatment, and crowns. (UMF No. 4.) In late 2010, Defendant placed implants in her upper right and upper left premolar areas, which were restored and completed. (UMF No. 5.) In 2012, three of Plaintiff’s root canal teeth became re-infected and
Hearing Date
January 14, 2020
Type
Medical Malpractice - Physicians & Surgeons (General Jurisdiction)
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
I. INTRODUCTION
On October 24, 2017 Plaintiff Margaret Duran filed an action against defendant Ismail I. Elsherif, D.D.S. (“Defendant”) for negligence relating to dental care she received from April 2009 through October 24, 2016. Defendant moves for summary judgment on the grounds that there is no triable issue of fact respect to the standard of care provided in connection with Plaintiff’s care. No party opposed the motion.
II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
From April 2009 to October 24, 2016, Plaintiff received dental treatments from Defendant. (Undisputed Material Fact (“UMF”) No. 1.) Plaintiff was first seen by Defendant in April 2009, when she was diagnosed for root canal treatments, gum treatment, and crowns. (UMF No. 4.) In late 2010, Defendant placed implants in her upper right and upper left premolar areas, which were restored and completed. (UMF No. 5.) In 2012, three of Plaintiff’s root canal teeth became re-infected and