Snoke

Snoke v. Bolen

Good Law
1 Cal. Rptr. 2d 492·1991 Cal. App. LEXIS 1305·235 Cal. App. 3d 1427·91 Daily Journal DAR 14087·91 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9022
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 14, 1991A051904California1,507 words

Opinion

Opinion

Haning, J.

—Plaintiff/appellant Frances Snoke appeals a summary judgment in favor of defendant/respondent William B. Bolen, D.D.S., in her dental malpractice action. She challenges the trial court’s ruling that her action was barred by the statute of limitations. (Code Civ. Proc., § 340.5.)

Facts

In November 1986 respondent Bolen, appellant’s dentist, referred her to Dr. Paul McKee, an oral surgeon, for extraction of tooth number 5. McKee performed the extraction on January 6,1987. On January 16,1987, appellant returned to respondent for preparation of a dental bridge between teeth numbers 4 and 6. While preparing teeth numbers 4 and 6, respondent noted that a perforation had occurred on the distal aspect of the root of tooth number 6, most likely caused by a dental drill. The perforation appeared on an X-ray taken January 16. On approximately January 20 respondent informed appellant of the injury and attempted to seal the perforation. It is undisputed that the perforation occurred sometime between January 6 and January 20, 1987. Respondent performed numerous treatments to salvage tooth number 6 and last treated appellant on December 5, 1988.

On February 26, 1988, appellant filed…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.