Justice Alice Schlesinger
Dentist Brisman sought summary judgment dismissal of patient White’s claims for dental malpractice and fraudulent concealment. He performed a root canal on White in 2003. White went to another dentist, Dennis, seven and one-half years later as his teeth and sinuses were getting worse. Dennis discovered a piece of a broken file in the tooth Brisman worked on. Dennis extracted the tooth and an adjacent one, concluding Brisman’s root canal was responsible for an infection in the area causing the need for the extraction, and White’s other health issues involving his sinuses. Brisman opined the extraction did not appear to be related to his work, claiming the broken tip was a known, acceptable risk of a root canal. Brisman raised the issue of the statute of limitations, claiming any malpractice was separate from the leaving behind of the broken tip. The court disagreed noting the file tip which broke off during a procedure unintentionally was a foreign object, noting there was enough evidence to show the foreign object was sufficiently connected to the malpractice to permit the claim to go forward. It also found issues of fact of whether Brisman knew of the broken tip, and misrepresented the situation upon which White relied on to his detriment, denying summary judgment.
