Jenkins v Khan
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Jenkins v Khan 2012 NY Slip Op 30277(U) January 20, 2012 Supreme Court, Nassau County Docket Number: 17713/09 Judge: Michele M. Woodard Republished from New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service. Search E-Courts (http://www.nycourts.gov/ecourts) for any additional information on this case. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. -------------------------------------------------------------------------)( -------------- ------------------------ - --- ---- ---- ------ ----- ------------ )( )()( [* 1] SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NASSAU NANCY JENKINS , as mother and natural guardian of SHALAH JENKINS , and NANCY JENKS Individually, MICHELE M. WOODARD Plaintiff TRIAL/IAS Part 8 Index No. : 17713/09 Motion Seq. Nos. : 01 & 02 -against - SABEEH KHAN , D. , SABEEH KHAN , D. , P. ORCHID NAGHA VI , D. , JOHN LEE , D. , and KHAN DENTAL PRACTICE (this name being fictitious pending identification of the practice name). DECISION AND ORDER Defendants. Papers Read on this Motion: Defendant Orchid Naghavi , D. S.'s Notice of Motion Defendant John Lee s Notice of Cross- Motion Plaintiffs ' Affirmation in Opposition Defendant John Lee s Reply Affirmation This motion by the defendant Orchid Naghavi , D. granted. granting him summary judgment dismissing the complaint against him is This motion by the defendant John Lee , D. him summar judgment dismissing the complaint against him is 3212 , for an order pursuant to CPLR , for an order pursuant to CPLR 3212 granting granted. The plaintiffs in this action seek to recover for dental malpractice. They allege that in orthodontically treating the infant-plaintiff Shalah Jenkins from 2002 through 2005 , the defendants failed to timely diagnose a benign cyst , an ameloblastoma underneath the wisdom tooth in the far right lower corner , tooth #32 , which had to be surgically removed along with two adjacent teeth in order to access the cyst. Drs. Naghavi and Lee seek summar judgment dismissing the complaint against them. [* 2] They not only maintain that there is no evidence that the cyst e)(isted when they treated the infant- plaintiff, they maintain that their involvement with the infant-plaintiff was e)(tremely limited. More specifically, that their care of the infant-plaintiff was limited to routine maintenance of the braces on his upper jaw; that the services did not involve e)(aminations which could have revealed the growth; and that neither the infant-plaintiff nor his mother made no complaints waranting fuher e)(arination. On a motion for summar judgment pursuant to CPLR ~3212 , the proponent must make a showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to prima facie Sheppard-Mobley demonstrate the absence of any material issues of fact." affd as mod Dept 2004), citing Alvarez Prospect Hosp. 10 AD3d 70 , 74 (2d 68 NY2d 320 324 New York Univ. Med Ctr. 64 NY2d 851 853 (1985). " Failure to make such (1986); Winegrad facie 4 NY3d 627 (2005), King, prima showing requires a denial of the motion , regardless of the suffciency of the opposing papers. Sheppard-Mobley Med Ctr. , supra. King, supra at p. 74; Alvarez Prospect Hasp., supra; Winegrad New York Univ. Once the movant's burden is met , the burden shifts to the opposing par to establish the e)(istence of a material issue of fact. Alvarez Prospect Hosp. , supra at p. 324. The evidence presented by the opponents of summar judgment must be accepted as true and they must be given the See, Demishick benefit of every reasonable inference. AD3d 518 Community Housing Management Corp. , 34 Secafv Greens Condominium 158 AD2d 591 (2d Dept 1990). 521 (2d Dept 2006), citing The requisite elements of proof in a dental malpractice action are a deviation or deparure from accepted standards of dental practice , and that such departure was a proximate cause of the plaintiff s injuries (citations omitted). 885 (2011). " Consequently, Zito Jastremski 84 AD3d 1069 , 1070 (2d Dept 2011), Iv den. 17 NY3d on a motion for summar judgment , a defendant has the initial burden of establishing that he or she did not depar from good and accepted practice , or if there was such a [* 3] departure , that it was not a pro)(imate cause of the plaintiffs injuries. Zito Jastremski, supra at p. 1070. " To sustain this burden , the defendant must address and rebut any specific allegations of malpractice set forth in the plaintiffs Yeung, bil of particulars (citations omitted). Koi Hou Chan Sammi 66 AD3d 643 , 643 (2d Dept 2009). " To defeat summar judgment , the nonmoving pary need only raise a triable issue of fact with respect to the element of the cause of action or theory of nonliability that is the subject of the moving par' s prima facie showing. p. 1070- 1071 , citing Stukas Zito Jastremski, supra Streiter 83 AD3d 18 21- 26 (2d Dept 2011). The transcripts relied on by defendant Lee are admissible. Not only were the majority of them produced by the plaintiffs lawyer , they are valid under CPLR ~3116(a). Having been produced by the plaintiffs ' attorney, the medical records were produced by the plaintiffs as well. Dr. Naghavi only treated the infant-plaintiff twice , on November 3 and 10 \ 2003. Dr. Lee only treated the plaintiff twice too , on September 21 2004 and November 3, 2004. The cyst was not discovered until Februar 28 , 2005 by Dr. Ruggerio. At his e)(amination- before- trial , Dr. Ruggerio was unable to state how long the cyst had been there. In fact , there is no evidence at all which indicates that it e)(isted when the infant-plaintiff was treated by the defendant Drs. Naghavi and Lee. Absent such evidence , the plaintiffs ' claim against them fails. In any event , assuming, arguendo that there was evidence which indicated that the cyst e)(isted when the moving defendants treated the infant- plaintiff, liability stil would not lie. The infant- plaintiff began treatment with Dr. Khan in December 2002. He conducted a thorough e)(arination including )(-rays and a growth study analysis and formulated a treatment plan. Upper braces were placed by Dr. Kah on March November 3 , 19 2003. Dr. Naghavi saw the infant- plaintiff on 2003 on which date he only placed four separators , i. , small bands placed between teeth [* 4] to assist them to gently move apart , between the first molar and pre-molar in the upper jaw. complaints were lodged and no other orthodontic treatment was called for that day. Dr. Naghavi saw the infant- plaintiff a week later on November 10 , 2003 on which date he placed orthodontic bands providing an anchor for the brackets on the first upper molars , a new wire in the upper braces and changed the rubber bands on the upper braces. Again, no symptoms were present and no complaints were made and so that was the complete orthodontic care called for that day. Dr. Lee saw the infant- plaintiff on September 21 2004 and November 3 occasions , he only adjusted the palate e)(pander which was par of the upper 2004. On both bite plate and replaced rubber bands. At her e)(amination- before- trial , the infant-plaintiffs mother , the plaintiff Nancy Jenkins testified that she first became aware of swellng on her son s face in August 2004 upon his retu from California. She contacted his pediatrician Dr. Lashey and made an appointment for him to be seen three months later in November 2004. She admitted that she never e)(pressed any concern about it to any other doctors including the defendants in the interim. When Dr. Lashey saw the infant-plaintiff on November 10 , 2004 , indicates " was he diagnosed him with swollen glands and prescribed antibiotics. His char in fight and wire from braces traumatized cheek. The infant- plaintiff did not see Dr. Ruggerio until Februar 8 2005. At his e)(arination- beforetrial , Dr. Ruggerio testified that he couldn t say how long the lesion e)(isted before he discovered it nor could he opine when it began to grow , how quickly it grew or how long it had been there. He testified that there is no real cause for it; it was developmental. Having e)(amined the pertinent legal and medical records , Dr. Winslow , an ortodontist , notes that Dr. Naghavi did not see this patient for the first time until the braces had been on for eight months. [* 5] By that point , all preparation work had already been performed with reference to the braces and the braces had already been placed and adjusted. Moreover, he notes that there had been no indication at any point that the plaintiff was suffering from a lower mandibular cyst. Dr. Winslow notes that the care rendered by Dr. Naghavi was very limited and rightly so as there was no indications either medically or verbally by the infant-plaintiff or his mother which waranted any further e)(amination or treatment. With regard to the November 3 visit , he opines: This routine orthodontic visit to place separators would not have involved an e)(tensive intraoral e)(amination of the plaintiff and certainly would not have involved an e)(amination of the plaintiffs mandibular ramus region , that is the area where the plaintiff ultimately had a benign growth. Additionally, this visit would not have necessitated any tye of radiographs. With regard to the November 1 0 , visit , he opines: This too was routine maintenance of the orthodontic braces and did not necessitate the taking of any radiographs or any intraoral e)(amination that would have in any way addressed the mandibular ramus. The plaintiff did not make any complaints of a dental nature to Dr. Naghavi on this date, nor was there any indication that the plaintiff had an ameloblastoma. Thus , Dr. Winslow concludes that Dr. Naghavi saw the infant-plaintiff only twice in the span of a week for " simple orthopedic maintenance and adjustment which in no way would have called for the need to perform radiographs of any nature nor would have necessitated an intraoral e)(amination of the infant-plaintiff that could in any way have led (him) to believe that the infant-plaintiff had a benign growth in the mandibular ramus region. " He also notes that there is no evidence that the growth e)(isted then. In conclusion , he opines that Dr. Naghavi' s care of the infant-plaintiff was within the medically accepted standard of care and that he did not depar of the infant-plaintiff. He e)(plains that the from good and accepted dental practice in his care ameloblastoma is a developmental growth not caused by any specific act or trauma and not the care rendered by Dr. Naghavi. [* 6] Dr. Naghavi has established his entitlement to summar judgment dismissing the complaint against him. Dr. Lee has also established his entitlement to sumar judgment dismissing the complaint against him as his care of the infant-plaintiff was also very limited and nothing medically or verbally waranted fuer e)(amination or treatment. The burden accordingly shifts to the plaintiff to establish the e)(istence of material issues of fact. The plaintiffs have not opposed Dr. Naghavi' s motion and they have not met their burden with respect to Dr. Lee. The defendants Dr. Naghavi and Dr. Lee is s motions are granted and the complaint against them dismissed. This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court. DATED: 2012 Mineola , N. Y. 11501 Januar 20 ENTER: W/l CHELE M. WOODARD F:\Jenkins v Khan MLP. wpd ENTERED JAN 27 2012 NASSAU COUNTY S OfFtCE COUNTY CLERK'
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
