Opinion
Decided September 29, 2004.
Appeal by defendant from a small claims judgment of the Civil Court, Queens County (B. Siegal, J.), entered on April 18, 2003, which awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $3,000.
Judgment unanimously reversed without costs and action dismissed.
PRESENT: PESCE, P.J., ARONIN and PATTERSON, JJ.
The pro se plaintiff commenced a small claims action to recover for defective dental services. In order to prove a prima facie case of dental malpractice, a plaintiff must show that (1) there was a deviation or departure from the requisite standard of dental practice, and (2) the departure from the requisite standard of practice was a proximate cause of the complained of injury ( Knutson v. Sand, 282 AD2d 42).
In Meiselman v. Crown Heights Hospital ( 285 NY 389, 396), the Court of Appeals stated that:
"Ordinarily, expert medical opinion evidence, based on suitable hypotheses, is required, when the subject-matter to be inquired about is presumed not to be within common knowledge and experience and when legal inference predominates over statement of fact, to furnish the basis for a determination by a jury of unskillful practice and medical treatment by physicians; but where the matters are within the experience and observation of the ordinary jurymen from which they may draw their own conclusions and the facts are of such a nature as to require no special knowledge or skill, the opinion of experts is unnecessary."
In the case at bar, the bridge installed by defendant in plaintiff's mouth loosened after a period of time. The defendant replaced it without an additional charge and it too loosened after a period of time. Without an expert's testimony, it cannot be determined that this was a deviation or departure from the requisite standard of dental practice and, if so, that such departure from the requisite standard of practice was a proximate cause of the complained of injury. Consequently, substantial justice was not done between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law (CCA 1807) and the action must be dismissed.