|
2798 REVIEW DENIED Although plaintiff briefly suspected that defendant dentist was guilty of dental malpractice, her consultation with another dentist who reassured her that everything was all right did not interfere with her relationship with defendant and did not start the period of limitations running; in apportioning fault under Proposition 51, a jury is not required to consider the negligence of a practitioner whose prior treatment of plaintiff made more difficult her treatment by defendant.CitationKITZIG v NORDQUIST (Dental Implants) 81 CA4 1384 [See: CCP 340.5; CivC 1431.2; Norgart v Upjohn 21 C4 383, T/AT 9/99; Jolly v Eli Lilly 44 C3 1103; Ash v Mortensen 24 C2 654; Conrad v Ball 24 CA4 439, T/AT 6/94]
|
|
