 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Sreshta v. Kaydan5/6/1999
Judgment: Affirmed in part; reversed in part.
Defendant-appellant Svetlana Kaydan appeals from the summary judgments entered by the Garfield Heights Municipal Court in favor of plaintiff-appellee Flavia Sreshta, D.D.S. arising out of plaintiff's claim for compensation for dental services and defendant's counterclaim for dental malpractice. Defendant contends that disputed issues of material fact precluded summary judgment on either claim. For the reasons hereinafter stated, we affirm in part and reverse in part.
Defendant first saw Dr. Sreshta for treatment on May 13, 1993. She had numerous serious dental problems and had not seen a dentist for ten years. Initial examination revealed that defendant's teeth were either decayed or missing, and a number of teeth were badly eroded. Dr. Sreshta began a course of treatment that covered five months.
Over that period, Dr. Sreshta performed the following treatment on defendant's upper teeth: four teeth were extracted, including three teeth which had decayed down to the gum line; silver amalgam fillings were placed on two teeth; composite (tooth- colored) fillings were placed on six teeth; and an upper partial denture was created to replace four teeth which were missing. Defendant last saw Dr. Sreshta on October 28, 1993.
Defendant testified at her deposition that she was never satisfied with the upper partial denture created by Dr. Sreshta because it did not fit correctly and it was not a permanent partial but a removable one; it was uncomfortable; and it had metal showing which defendant believed was unsightly. She claimed that she only wore the upper partial denture on, at most, four occasions.
Defendant also testified that the fillings began to chip while she was still undergoing treatment in 1993. One filling eroded and disintegrated at the time she was seeing Dr. Sreshta in 1993. That filling was replaced free of charge, Dr. Sreshta noting that the early failure was most unusual. Defendant also claimed that the fillings were too large, which made it impossible for her to get dental floss between her teeth. She also admitted during her deposition that Dr. Sreshta's dental work was chipped in 1994 and 1995, and that there was chipping in all the years following her treatment with Dr. Sreshta.
On July 12, 1996, Dr. Sreshta filed suit against defendant on an account in Garfield Heights Municipal Court to recover $960 still due for the dental services provided. On August 12, 1996, defendant filed a pro se answer in the form of general denial alleging payment of $1,400 and complaining of the quality of the dental work performed.
In July 1997, with leave of court, defendant filed an amended answer/counterclaim (inadvertently called a cross-complaint ) which alleged a claim for dental malpractice. Defendant claimed that Dr. Sreshta provided her with a removable bridge which is unusable and with fillings which have cracked and broken-up since their creation.
Following discovery, on December 29, 1997, plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment on the grounds that the counterclaim was barred by the statute of limitations. Dr. Sreshta also requested that summary judgment be granted on her complaint in the amount of $660. Defendant had apparently paid $300 on her account during the pendency of the litigation under the misimpression that Dr. Sreshta would dismiss her case. The defendant opposed the motions.
After further briefing, on January 22, 1998, the Garfield Heights Municipal Court issued an order granting Dr. Sreshta's motion for summary judgment on her complaint and against defendant on her counterclaim. The court offered no opinion or explana
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|