Szubielski v. Price

Szubielski v. Price

The motions judge correctly granted respondents summary judgment dismissing the hazardous device claim for lack of expert evidence as to the device's existence and causation, and correctly refused the appellant's summary judgment on the periodontal negligence allegation because conflicting expert evidence raised genuine issues of material fact requiring trial.

Citation
2013 NSCA 151
Parties
Appellant: Wanda Szubielski; Respondents: Dr. Richard B. Price; Dr. Richard B. Price Dentistry Incorporated; Dr. Michael Roda; Dr. Sayed M. Mirbod; Dr. Andrew F. Thompson trading as Park Lane Dental Specialists
Court
Nova Scotia Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
19 December 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Summary Judgment Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Causation, Standard of Care, Expert Evidence, Credibility Assessment
Source Language
English
Tort Medical Malpractice Negligence Civil Procedure Summary Judgment Causation Standard of Care Expert Evidence +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wanda Szubielski

Appellant

Dr. Richard B. Price; Dr. Richard B. Price Dentistry Incorporated; Dr. Michael Roda; Dr. Sayed M. Mirbod; Dr. Andrew F. Thompson trading as Park Lane Dental Specialists

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Summary Judgment Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether summary judgment was appropriate to dismiss the claim alleging a hazardous device caused the plaintiff's lesions
  2. 2 Whether there was a genuine issue of material fact as to standard of care and causation in the periodontal negligence claim requiring a trial
  3. 3 What evidentiary weight is required from expert witnesses in dental malpractice summary judgment applications

Ratio Decidendi

The motions judge correctly granted respondents summary judgment dismissing the hazardous device claim for lack of expert evidence as to the device's existence and causation, and correctly refused the appellant's summary judgment on the periodontal negligence allegation because conflicting expert evidence raised genuine issues of material fact requiring trial.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Respondents' motion for summary judgment granted dismissing the hazardous device claim
  • Appellant's motion for summary judgment refused; negligence claim regarding periodontal disease preserved for trial