You are here: / / QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DENTIST WAS AN EMPLOYEE OR AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR...
, ,

QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DENTIST WAS AN EMPLOYEE OR AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR AND WHETHER PLAINTIFF GAVE INFORMED CONSENT (THIRD DEPT).

After finding there was a question of fact whether the dentist (Weiss) who treated plaintiff was an employee of defendant-Toothsavers or an independent contractor, the Second Department determined there was a question of fact about whether plaintiff gave informed consent to the procedure:

“The Toothsavers defendants contend that because Weiss was an independent contractor, not an employee, they cannot be vicariously liable for Weiss’s malpractice. The general rule is that a party who retains an independent contractor, as distinguished from a mere employee or servant, is not liable for the independent contractor’s negligent acts” … . “The determination of whether an employer-employee relationship exists turns on whether the alleged employer exercises control over the results produced or, more importantly, the means used to achieve the results” … . …

“To establish a cause of action [to recover damages] for malpractice based on lack of informed consent, [a] plaintiff must prove (1) that the person providing the professional treatment failed to disclose alternatives thereto and failed to inform the patient of reasonably foreseeable risks associated with the treatment, and the alternatives, that a reasonable medical practitioner would have disclosed in the same circumstances, (2) that a reasonably prudent patient in the same position would not have undergone the treatment if he or she had been fully informed, and (3) that the lack of informed consent is a proximate cause of the injury” … . Chan v Toothsavers Dental Care Inc, 2015 NY Slip Op 01236, 2nd Dept 2-11-15

 

You might also like
THE MAJORITY DETERMINED PLAINTIFF DID NOT TIE HIS DIMINISHED RANGE OF MOTION TO THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT, AS OPPOSED TO HIS PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS, AND THEREFORE PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE “SERIOUS INJURY;” THE DISSENT ARGUED THE NATURE OF THE ACCIDENT (DEFENDANTS’ TRUCK REAR-ENDED PLAINTIFF’S CAR AT 45 MILES PER HOUR) SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AND DEFENDANT MUST TAKE THE PLAINTIFF AS HE OR SHE FINDS HIM (THIRD DEPT). ​
Officer Did Not Have Reasonable Suspicion Defendant Posed a Danger—Pat-Down Search Triggered by a Bulge In Defendant’s Waistband Was Not Justified Under the DeBour Test
A PROPERTY OWNER DOES NOT HAVE A DUTY TO INSTALL A NON-SLIP FLOOR OR A GRAB BAR IN A SHOWER STALL; THEREFORE THE NEGLIGENCE AND NUMEROUS OTHER CAUSES OF ACTION IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT-DRIVER RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER HE WAS NEGLIGENT IN THIS VEHICLE-BICYCLE ACCIDENT CASE (SECOND DEPT). ​
SENTENCING COURT MUST CONSIDER YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS EVEN WHERE IT IS NOT REQUESTED OR WHERE DEFENDANT AGREES TO FORGO IT AS PART OF A PLEA BARGAIN (SECOND DEPT).
Unambiguous Release Standing Alone Warrants Summary Judgment
INSURANCE BROKER DID NOT PRESENT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE THE AMOUNT OF UNINSURED MOTORIST COVERED REQUESTED BY THE PLAINTIFF WAS PROCURED, BROKER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS NEGLIGENCE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
DUE DILIGENCE STANDARD FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS PURSUANT TO CPLR 308 (4) WAS MET (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

One- and Two- Family Homeowners’ Exemption Precluded Labor Law 240 (1)... Newspaper Carriers Were Employees Despite Reference to Them as Independent Contractors...