 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Jarred v. Hendrix12/15/1999
This is a dental malpractice case. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendant dentist based on the plaintiff's failure to submit sufficient expert medical testimony to support her claim. The plaintiff then filed a motion to alter or amend the summary judgment order, which was denied on the basis that the information submitted in support of the motion to alter or amend was available prior to the grant of summary judgment. We affirm both the grant of summary judgment and the denial of plaintiff's motion to alter or amend the judgment.
Plaintiff/appellant, Katherine Jarred ("Jarred"), filed her original complaint on August 16, 1994, and filed an amended complaint approximately two months later. Jarred alleged that in 1992 defendant/appellee, dentist Dr. Kitsie Hendrix ("Hendrix"), improperly inserted eight dental implants into her mouth. Jarred asserted that Hendrix failed to prepare a proper diagnosis or treatment plan and failed to consult a qualified dentist to do the necessary reconstructive dental work. Jarred claimed that the implants did not support a fixed bridge as intended, and that this was a result of Hendrix' negligence.
On September 5, 1997, three years after the original complaint was filed, Hendrix filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that Jarred had failed to produce medical evidence sufficient to satisfy the requirements for a claim of medical malpractice. Approximately three weeks later, Jarred responded to the motion by filing the affidavit of Dr. Roger Craddock ("Dr. Craddock"), a dentist practicing in Memphis, Tennessee, who had agreed to act as Jarred's expert witness. Dr. Craddock stated in his affidavit that Hendrix had deviated from the standard of care as it existed in 1992 at the planning phase of the implant work she performed on Jarred.
Dr. Craddock was to be deposed by Hendrix on April 9, 1998. On the day of the deposition, Jarred's attorney claims that Dr. Craddock attempted to withdraw from the case because of pressure he had received from the local dental community about testifying as an expert witness on behalf of a plaintiff in a dental malpractice case. Dr. Craddock denies that he ever told Jarred's attorney that he had been pressured by the dental community. He states that he simply told Jarred's attorney the day of the deposition that he did not want to testify because he did not think that Jarred had a good case.
Dr. Craddock went ahead with the deposition, but his testimony included conclusions different than those in his affidavit. Dr. Craddock testified in his deposition that he was not able to conclude that Hendrix fell below the standard of care in 1992 because he did not know the status of Jarred's mouth in 1992. Dr. Craddock testified that he could not retrospectively ascertain the state of Jarred's mouth in 1992 based on the treatment notes and on x-rays of Jarred's mouth dating back to August 1989.
After Dr. Craddock's deposition, Hendrix immediately renewed her original motion for summary judgment. She filed a supplemental memorandum in support of the motion which included portions of Dr. Craddock's deposition testimony. The memorandum incorporated the same legal argument contained in Hendrix' original motion for summary judgment, i.e. that Jarred failed to produce medical evidence sufficient to support her claim. A hearing on the motion was set for May 8, 1998.
On May 4, 1998, Jarred filed the affidavit of Dr. Gregory E. Tharp ("Dr. Tharp"), a licensed dentist practicing in Jackson, Mississippi. Dr. Tharp's affidavit stated that he had reviewed records pertaining to Jarred's treatment by Hendrix and by other dentists dating back to 1990. From these records, Dr.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Tennessee Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|