Paden v. Rudd

The plaintiff's complaint failed to state a claim for battery outside of professional negligence, since the plaintiff specifically alleged that she consented to the root canal procedure at issue.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Wanda A. Paden appeals the trial court’s dismissal of her battery claims. We affirm, for reasons that follow. ” ‘When reviewing the grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, we review the dismissal de novo, construing the complaint’s allegations and all possible inferences therefrom in favor of the plaintiff.’ “ 1 So viewed, the record shows that Paden sued dentist Sherry Rudd and Jerry E. Nutt, D.D.S., P.C. d/b/a Douglasville Dental Group Practice, claiming that a root canal procedure left her permanently injured.2 Rudd moved for summary judgment, alleging that Paden’s expert affidavit was insufficient. The trial court denied the motion, as well as Rudd’s subsequent motion for reconsideration on essentially the same basis, and Rudd filed an application for an interlocutory appeal. We reversed, in Rudd v. Paden ,3 concluding that Rudd was entitled to summary judgment as to Paden’s dental malpractice claims because her expert “did not have personal knowledge of the facts, and certified copies of the dental records on which he had relied in forming his opinions concerning Rudd’s negligence were neither attached to the affidavit nor part of the record.”4

Then, the Nutt defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that Paden’s claims against them were barred by the doctrine of res judicata, and the trial court granted the motion. Thereafter, Paden filed a motion to place the case on the next available trial calendar.5 After a hearing, the trial court entered an order denying Paden’s motion to place the case on a trial calendar and dismissing her battery claims sua sponte, concluding that “the complaint fails to state a claim for battery outside of professional negligence.” This appeal followed.

Paden v. Rudd

The plaintiff's complaint failed to state a claim for battery outside of professional negligence, since the plaintiff specifically alleged that she consented to the root canal procedure at issue.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report