 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Cravens v. Dentures3/11/2005
AFFIRMING
Margaret Cravens appeals from a summary judgment from the Jefferson Circuit Court dismissing her civil complaint against Sure-Fit Dentures, a dental laboratory in Louisville, Kentucky, and its owner, Linda D. Hauner, based on Cravens' claim of negligence, breach of contract, and products liability, in connection with dentures made for her by Sure-Fit. The issue is whether the circuit court properly awarded summary judgment to the appellees because Cravens failed to have an expert witness to support her claim. We conclude that summary judgment was appropriate, and we thus affirm.
Cravens, who had been wearing dentures since the 1970s, first visited the Sure-Fit office on June 22, 2000. On that date Sure-Fit made a wax impression of Cravens' upper palate so that a full upper denture could be made. She returned on June 26 to test the fit of the impression, and she returned the following day to get the final product. On June 28 Cravens returned for an adjustment, and she also returned for adjustments on June 29 as well as on July 6.
On August 4, 2000, Cravens had the five teeth remaining on her lower jaw extracted. She then returned to Sure-Fit on August 30 to have a wax impression made for a lower denture. She picked up that denture on September 1, and she returned for adjustments on September 6 and September 8. Cravens then left Kentucky on September 15 for an extended visit to California.
Cravens claims that she continued to have problems with her dentures while she was in California. She returned to Kentucky on March 31, 2001, and returned to Sure-Fit to have the dentures adjusted on May 8. An additional adjustment was made on May 23, and Cravens returned to Sure-Fit for her last visit on May 29. When her demand for a new set of dentures was denied by Sure-Fit, Cravens left the premises telling Sure-Fit employees that "I'll see you in court."
On June 27, 2001, Cravens filed a civil complaint in the Jefferson Circuit Court against Sure-Fit. Amended complaints were subsequently filed, and Hauner as well as Dr. Denise Payne, the dentist employed by Sure-Fit who dealt with Cravens, were added as party defendants. On September 3, 2003, the circuit court entered a summary judgment in favor of all defendants. The basis of the court's ruling was that the matter had been pending for more than two years and that Cravens had failed to present any expert proof to support her claim. The court stated that " bsent testimony from some expert, the Court is left only with the Plaintiff's own assertion that the dentures did not fit properly and that they were fabricated incorrectly." Further, the court stated that " ay persons do not have sufficient general knowledge to determine if a mandibular tori was the cause of the ill-fitting dentures." This appeal by Cravens followed.
Cravens' brief fails to comply with many of the requirements of CR 76.12. For example, her brief makes no reference to any portion of the trial record, contains no statement of points and authorities, does not have a copy of the judgment attached thereto, contains no statement regarding oral arguments, and does not certify that a copy of the brief was sent to the trial judge. Each of these matters demonstrates a failure to comply with the appropriate civil rule. See id. The appellees ask us to strike Cravens' brief pursuant to CR 76.12(8)(a). However, because Cravens' appeal is without merit at any rate, we decline to do so.
Cravens' complaint is based upon her belief that Sure-Fit was negligent by not telling her when it fit her for dentures that she had a "mandibular tori." She argues that she "should have at least been given the knowledge of the pros
Page 1 2 3 Kentucky Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|