Khiterer v. Bell

2005 WL 192354 (N.Y. City Civ. Ct. Jan. 28, 2005)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P began treatment with D. It included the fabrication and fitting of three crowns. P last saw D in December 2002. After being treated by a different dentist the next summer, P learned that the crowns were not fabricated with porcelain on gold as per the P-D contract. P sued D for breach of contract. P’s witness testified that D had promised P that the crowns would be gold. D testified that she had no independent recollection of any conversation with Ms. Khiterer about the composite material for the crowns. D testified that an all-porcelain crown was therapeutically superior to a crown containing any metal, including the gold alloy because the presence of metal created a risk of patient reaction. The cost of each is the same, but the cement that binds the all-porcelain crown is more expensive.