Minisce v. Thompson

Plaintiff appeals, assigning error to the entry of summary judgment against her complaint for dental malpractice. The trial court concluded that both of plaintiffs claims, which pertained to separate dental procedures, were barred by the statute of limitations. We affirm on one claim, which concerns the performance of a root canal, and reverse on the other claim, which concerns the placement of two crowns.

The material facts are undisputed. Between May 1985 and December 1992, defendant Dr. Thompson 2 provided dental treatment to plaintiff. Two particular dental procedures are the focus of this…