Samuel J Murray, Claimant, v. DMD PLLC THE ORTHODONTIST AND CO (2026)

After a bench trial and considering all testimony and evidence, this matter is hereby decided as follows:

Claimant filed this dental malpractice action against his former orthodontist, Dr. Jeremiah Juson, seeking to recover the sum of $6,300.00 for damages arising out of Dr. Juson's alleged failure to provide proper orthodontic services for a period of approximately two years commencing on or about November 30, 2021, until Dr. Juson unilaterally terminated treatment on September 29, 2023, via email from defendant's counsel, Mr. Sean M. Lipsky, Esq.

The Court begins its analysis by noting that this matter is before it in Small Claims Court where informal and simplified procedures are in place and the function of the Court under the CCA § 1804 is to effect "substantial justice between the parties according to the rules of substantive law." Nevertheless, a plaintiff in a Small Claims action for dental malpractice generally must establish the elements of malpractice through expert testimony. (Shalamova v Pinksy, 56 Misc 3d 128[A], 2017 NY Slip Op 50823[U] [App Term 2017]; Blum v Yuabov, 12 Misc 3d 139[A], 824 N.Y.S.2d 760, 2006 NY Slip Op 51333[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2006]; Davis v Levine, 4 Misc 3d 143[A], 798 N.Y.S.2d 343, 2004 NY Slip Op 51101[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2004]).

In order to prevail on his dental malpractice cause of action, the claimant "must establish that the defendant departed from good and accepted dental practice and that such departure was a proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries." (Cohen v Kalman, 54 AD3d 307, 307, 863 N.Y.S.2d 63 [2008]; see Knutson v Sand, 282 AD2d 42, 725 N.Y.S.2d 350 [2001]).

Here, it is undisputed that the parties entered into an agreement on November 30, 2021, whereby claimant paid Dr. Juson $7,633.00 for Invisalign orthodontic treatment where the anticipated length of treatment was two years dependent upon factors such as "tooth movement, bone formation, age of patient, and very greatly on the cooperation of the patient." The contract further states that the patient's cooperation "implies a proper diet, good oral hygiene, wearing of elastics and any required appliances, and meeting all scheduled appointments." The issue before this Court after trial is whether claimant has met his burden of proving that claimant's lack of progress under Dr. Juson's treatment was a result of malpractice.

Claimant failed to present expert testimony to establish that Dr. Juson's Invisalign treatment departed from good and accepted dental practice and that such departure was a proximate cause of the claimant's lack of progress. Claimant testified that, after Dr. Juson terminated his treatment, claimant sought further treatment from Dr. Suri who successfully closed his open bite in about a year of treatment and submitted pictures as evidence to that effect. However, absent expert testimony, claimant has not established that the lack of progress in claimant's treatment under Dr. Juson was a result of any departure from accepted dental practice during claimant's treatment. Instead, there is evidence from Dr. Juson's expert testimony, the dental monitoring system, and the charting report, that the lack of progress resulted from claimant's failure to comply with the treatment's patient cooperation requirements to maintain good oral hygiene and wear any required appliances, as well as his refusal of alternate treatment with metal brackets. As a result, claimant failed to establish malpractice during the course of claimant's treatment with Dr. Juson.

As to Dr. Juson's abandonment of claimant's treatment, where "the very nature of the acts complained of bespeaks improper treatment and malpractice," a prima facie case may be established without the necessity of offering expert evidence to that effect. (Restrepo v State, 146 Misc 2d 349, 355 [Ct Cl 1989] (citing Hammer v Rosen, 7 NY2d 376, 380 [1960]); see also Christine S. v Community Hosp., 202 AD2d 567, 568 [2d Dept 1994]). No expert is necessary to explain that a patient is entitled to publish an honest review of his perceived experience with any business services rendered to him, and that an orthodontist should not penalize a patient for a negative review by severing its contract and terminating a patient's incomplete dental treatment plan without so much as removing fixed attachments. (See Mathew v Klinger, D.V.M., P.C., 179 Misc 2d 609 [App Term 1998]; Hammer v Rosen, 7 NY2d 376, 380 [1960]). This Court is, therefore, satisfied that claimant sustained his burden of proof to the extent that Dr. Juson's abandonment of treatment was improper for the reasons set forth above, and the defendant's abandonment of claimant's orthodonic treatment necessarily required claimant to seek further services from another orthodontist for evaluation and removal of the fixed attachments.

Accordingly, and in the interest of substantial justice, judgment is rendered in favor of the claimant and against the defendant in an amount of $1,000.00 with interest from September 29, 2023, to compensate claimant for Dr. Juson's improper abandonment of treatment. The clerk is hereby directed to enter Judgment accordingly.

This constitutes the decision and order of the Court.

Dated: June 2, 2026

Queens, New York

HON. FANIA JEAN

Fania Jean, J.