Hazel

Hazel v. Hewlett

Good Law
1988 Cal. App. LEXIS 525·201 Cal. App. 3d 1458·247 Cal. Rptr. 723
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 10, 1988B029329California2,952 words

Opinion

Opinion

Lillie, J.

In this dental malpractice action plaintiff, Rex Hazel, appeals from judgment entered in favor of defendant Edmond Hewlett, D.D.S., and against plaintiff after the trial court sustained defendant’s affirmative defense of the statute of limitations.

Factual and Procedural Background

In June 1983 plaintiff went to the offices of Carl Stasiewicz, D.D.S., for dental treatment. Dr. Stasiewicz determined that it was necessary to extract 13 of plaintiff’s teeth and he extracted 7 of them during plaintiff’s next two visits. On the last of these visits Dr. Stasiewicz told plaintiff the remaining extractions would be performed by Dr. Edmond Hewlett. When plaintiff went to the offices of Dr. Stasiewicz on August 5, 1983, Dr. Hewlett introduced himself to plaintiff by name and then performed the remaining six extractions. On plaintiff’s initial visit he completed a medical questionnaire form wherein he indicated that he had had rheumatic fever. Despite this information neither Dr. Stasiewicz nor Dr. Hewlett administered antibiotics to plaintiff in the course of the extractions. Within two weeks after completion of his dental work, plaintiff experienced total loss of appetite,…

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.