The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

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.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.