Willard

Willard v. Hagemeister

Good Law
121 Cal. App. 3d 406·175 Cal. Rptr. 365·1981 Cal. App. LEXIS 1945
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 9, 1981Docket Nos. 60184, 59108California4,318 words

Opinion

Opinion

Stephens, J.

In these consolidated appeals, plaintiff and appellant, Faye L. Willard, seeks reversal of summary judgments in a dental malpractice action entered in favor of defendants and respondents Carl R. Hagemeister, D.D.S., Dennis R. Hardin, D.D.S., Jeffrey D. Waterman, D.D.S., Stanley G. Eichstaedt, D.D.S., and Stanley G. Eichstaedt, Inc. The issue before this court is whether a disputed question of fact exists as to either the alleged negligence of respondents in providing dental care for appellant, or the purported misrepresentations made to her regarding the dental procedures used in this treatment.

Appellant’s first amended complaint contains five causes of action alleging fraud and negligence (malpractice) by respondents. The first four causes of action address both intentional and negligent misrepresentations which respondents Hagemeister and Hardin supposedly made to appellant. Appellant also seeks to impose liability against respondents Eichstaedt and Eichstaedt, Inc. for this alleged fraud. The complaint offers an agency theory for this requested recovery, asserting that Hagemeister and Hardin were dentists employed by the Eichstaedt clinic, and the principal…

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.