Mendez v. Tash CA2/1 ( 2023 )


Menu:
  • Filed 12/8/23 Mendez v. Tash CA2/1
    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
    California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on
    opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule
    8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for
    purposes of rule 8.1115.
    IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
    SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
    DIVISION ONE
    TOMAS MENDEZ et al.,                                             B326232
    Plaintiffs and Appellants,                              (Los Angeles County
    Super. Ct. No. 21STCV16759)
    v.
    RAYMOND M. TASH et al.,
    Defendants and Respondents.
    APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los
    Angeles County, Elihu M. Berle, Judge. Affirmed.
    Catanzarite Law Corporation, Kenneth J. Catanzarite for
    Plaintiffs and Appellants.
    Neufeld Marks, Paul S. Marks for Defendants and
    Respondents.
    ___________________________________
    The California Dental Board (Dental Board) authorized a
    partially disabled dentist to perform only limited procedures. In
    a putative class action, two patients sued the dentist for battery,
    alleging he performed unauthorized procedures. Plaintiffs moved
    for class certification, offering an expert’s opinion that liability
    could be established with common evidence, defendant’s own
    billing records, which showed he performed unauthorized
    procedures. Defendant countered with an expert who explained
    the billing records showed only that defendant supervised the
    practice of other dentists, not that he performed any procedures
    himself. The trial court found that plaintiffs failed to establish
    that class claims presented common questions of law and fact or
    that class treatment would be superior to individual litigation,
    and therefore denied certification.
    Plaintiffs argue that denial of certification was improper
    because in finding lack of commonality the court relied on
    inadmissible evidence and an improper legal assumption. We
    disagree, and therefore affirm.
    BACKGROUND
    A.     Complaint
    Raymond M. Tash, D.D.S. and Raymond M. Tash, D.D.S., A
    Professional Corporation (Tash APC), operated a dental practice
    in Lynwood doing business under the name St. Tomas Dentistry.
    Tash also operated another practice in Huntington Park.
    In 2013, Tash, who was partially disabled, entered into a
    stipulated settlement and disciplinary order with the Dental
    Board whereby his dental practice was to exclude “hands-on”
    dental work, which was defined as “treatment, by surgery or
    other method, of diseases and lesions, or the correction of
    malposition of teeth or associated structures.” Tash was
    2
    permitted to perform other dental work such as examination and
    cleaning.
    In 2019, Tash sold his Lynwood practice to Sung Lee,
    D.M.D.
    In 2022, Tomas and Dulce Mendez commenced this action
    on behalf of themselves and a putative class contesting the
    practice of Tash and Tash APC of performing dental procedures
    prohibited by the Dental Board. In their first amended
    complaint, plaintiffs assert causes of action on a class basis for
    violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq.,
    unjust enrichment, battery (lack of informed consent), and breach
    of fiduciary duty, seeking actual and punitive damages and
    declaratory relief. (Plaintiffs also assert individual claims for
    professional negligence, constructive fraud, and fraudulent
    concealment.)
    The Mendezes allege Tash concealed the Dental Board
    practice restriction and unlawfully charged patients and
    consumers for dental services he was unauthorized to perform.
    B.     Class Certification
    The Mendezes moved to certify a class of all persons for
    whom Tash performed hands-on dental work within four years
    prior to the complaint, which they estimated to be around 500
    individuals.
    The certification motion went through three rounds of
    briefing, the court ultimately finding the class was sufficiently
    ascertainable and numerous and the plaintiffs presented claims
    typical of the class and could adequately represent it. These
    findings are uncontested on appeal. The issues on appeal are
    whether common questions of law and fact predominate and
    3
    whether class treatment would be superior to individualized
    litigation.
    1.     Motion
    On these two issues the Mendezes at first argued they
    could prove the class claims based on their own personal
    observations of Tash’s practice while they were his patients. The
    trial court found this theory “strained credulity,” and the
    Mendezes have since abandoned it. We will therefore discuss
    only their second theory.
    As a second theory, the Mendezes argued that class claims
    could be proven using common evidence: Tash’s billing and
    practice records.
    In support of the argument, the Mendezes and Celma
    Ascencio, another Tash patient, declared that Tash treated them
    with “hands-on” dental work, which they defined as dental
    services performed with “gloved fingers” in their mouths.
    Also in support, Lou Manolescu, an expert on dental
    practice operations and billing practices, declared that she
    reviewed patient records and electronic files from Tash’s
    Lynwood practice which were now in the possession of Dr. Lee.
    The electronic files and billing records were originated and
    maintained on a practice management software system called
    Soft Dent, and included historical contemporaneous entries at the
    time of treatment that reflected dental work performed and
    related billings.
    Manolescu declared that Tash, identified by his National
    Provider Identifier (NPI), billed and collected as the “ ‘Treatment
    Dentist’ Doctor Number 1” for services that required hands-on
    dentistry. Other doctors worked at the practice, each with a
    separate NPI. Manolescu declared, “they did bill as well,” but
    4
    their production was “far lower than what Dr. Tash billed,” and
    none treated the Mendezes or Ascencio.
    Manolescu declared that she queried Soft Dent to
    determine the total number of patients “seen by Dr. Tash as
    doctor 1,” and was able to generate “production records for
    amounts billed for the work of Dr. 1 that tied to Dr. Tash.” “As a
    result,” Manolescu declared, “historical billings [and] entries . . .
    reflected [that] Dr. Tash as Treating Dentist did the work and
    billed as the dentist who provided the treatment.”
    Manolescu supported her declaration with 17 exhibits:
    a.    Exhibits 1 and 2: Qualifications
    Exhibit 1 was Manolescu’s curriculum vitae. Exhibit 2 was
    a printout of a search result from a federal Medicare/Medicaid
    Web site indicating NPI was 1609918705.
    b.    Exhibit 3: American Dental Association
    (ADA) Dental Claim Form
    Exhibit 3 purported to be a claim form submitted to Blue
    Cross of California for root canal therapy performed on Ascencio.
    Box 48 of the form identified “St. Tomas Dentistry” as the billing
    entity. Box 53 stated, “I hereby certify that the procedures as
    indicated . . . have been completed.” The signature line stated,
    “Signature on File.” Underneath this line the form stated,
    “Signed (Treating Dentist),” and next to this someone had typed
    “Raymond M. Tash, DDS.” Box 54 gave Tash’s NPI, 1609918705.
    Manolescu confirmed this work was billed by “Doctor 1” in
    Tash’s Soft Dent software, and declared that “electronic files with
    Dr. Tash as the Treating Dentist for [Ascencio]” existed for the
    years 2016, 2017, and 2018.
    5
    c.    Exhibits 4-7: Annual Production and
    Income
    Exhibits 4 through 7 were tables, apparently created by
    Manolescu or pulled from Soft Dent, showing that an unidentified
    entity made roughly $400,000 each year from 2016 to 2019.
    Manolescu represented that this entity was Tash’s dental
    practice.
    d.    Exhibits 8-11: Procedures by Code
    Exhibits 8 through 11, titled “Procedures by Procedure
    Code: Tash,” were tables, again apparently created by Manolescu,
    showing that an unidentified entity performed dozens of hands-
    on procedures each year from 2016 to 2019. Manolescu
    represented that Tash was the “treating” dentist.
    e.    Exhibits 12-17: Procedure and Payment
    Histories
    Exhibits 12 through 17 were tables, prepared by
    Manolescu, listing procedures performed on the Mendezes and
    Ascencio. In a column titled “Treat Dr,” the entries were all
    “Tash” or “Unknown.”
    2.    Opposition
    In opposition to the certification motion, Tash declared the
    Mendez and Ascencio declarations were “whole cloth”
    fabrications. Even if he had not been warned by his disability
    insurer that his practice would be monitored for unauthorized
    activity, he had trouble even holding a glass of water or buttoning
    his shirt, much less practicing hands-on dentistry. Instead, he
    managed the office, hired and supervised “a minimum of ten
    other dentists” working for him, checked their work, and oversaw
    billing.
    6
    In support of Tash’s opposition, Kathleen Johnson, a dental
    practice consultant, contested Manolescu’s central proposition
    that financial records from Dr. Tash’s former practice offered
    common proof that Tash provided hands-on treatment. Johnson
    declared that she “interpret[ed] the gist of Ms. Manolescu’s
    declaration to be that, upon her review of a limited [number] of
    financial documents relating to Dr. Tash’s former practice, it was
    Dr. Tash alone who provided services to the various patients in
    his practice, and there were no other practitioners who treated
    patients.”
    First, Johnson declared that she personally observed Tash’s
    former practice over the “better part of a full day” at the behest of
    a client who was interested in buying the practice. She was
    provided detailed financial documentation, was given access to
    employees on the premises, and watched the “associate-driven”
    practice as it was being run. She saw an associate dentist
    practice hands-on dentistry but never saw Tash do so. Johnson
    declared that “based on the information [she] reviewed, based on
    [her] own personal observations, and based on the
    communications [she] had with Dr. Tash, his former staff, and his
    counsel,” her “professional opinion [was] that Ms. Manolescu’s
    opinion [was] unsupported.”
    Johnson explained it was standard practice in the dental
    industry for a dental corporation’s contract with an insurance
    company to be under the corporation’s name, as occurred with
    Tash’s practice. This resulted in the corporation becoming the
    billing entity and Tash being considered the contracted provider.
    This was standard because associate dentists would not then be
    liable for income tax, and payments from insurance companies
    and Denti-Cal, Medi-Cal’s dental program, would not need to be
    7
    routed first to providers, who must then remit them to the
    practice.
    Johnson explained that every practitioner had an
    individual NPI number but that did not mean the person
    identified in the billing either by that number or as “Doctor No.
    1” conducted hands-on dentistry. In other words, that “Doctor
    No. 1 was the only billing doctor on the practice,” and billed
    under Tash’s NPI number, did not mean he performed the
    dentistry himself, just that he billed for it.
    Johnson explained that the associate dentists “were in the
    system not as billing entities but as the treatment providers,”
    which allowed Tash to track their performance and, for example,
    base any bonuses on their production.
    Johnson explained that “[e]very dental software program
    has the ability to break down procedures performed by code and
    payments toward those procedures. However, all this shows is
    that the practice was a general practice and was generating
    income by performing all aspects of general dentistry.” Such
    records had “nothing to do with who performed the work, as this
    practice was established as an associate-run practice. It would
    seem unusual for Dr. Tash to have paid for associate dentists, if
    he himself were doing all the treatments—which is what Ms.
    Manolescu is implying (if not outright stating).”
    3.    Ruling
    As noted above, the trial court found the class was
    sufficiently ascertainable and numerous and the plaintiffs
    presented typical claims and could adequately represent the
    class. The court also found the Mendezes could not prove class
    claims based on their own personal observations of Tash’s
    8
    practice while in the office. None of these findings is contested on
    appeal.
    Plaintiffs contest only the court’s reliance on Johnson’s
    opinion.
    In this respect, the court found that as Johnson explained,
    Manolescu made a “leap in logic” by stating Tash’s practice of
    billing as Doctor No. 1 showed he actually performed hands-on
    dentistry, and “fail[ed] to fill in missing gaps” between Tash’s
    billing and treatment practices.
    The court found that “[w]ithout Plaintiffs being able to
    show what common evidence would be set forth to establish Dr.
    Tash performing hands-on dentistry on a class-wide basis (not
    just billing entries which would be the same whether he
    performed the services or whether an associate did), all that can
    be deduced is that each class member would need to testify as to
    ‘whether Dr. Tash in fact performed any services on the person;
    what services were performed; and then, what damages were
    suffered.’ ”
    Even if billing records could indicate some aspect of
    classwide evidence, the court found, each contact may or may not
    have involved hands-on dentistry, and plaintiffs offered no viable
    option for determining which did and which did not. The court
    found, “To determine whether the services provided would fit the
    Dental Board’s definition would, no doubt, require individualized
    inquiry into the medical records of patients and/or their
    testimony as to what services were actually provided and by
    whom. Additionally, the class members would need to testify as
    to what injury, if any, was incurred.”
    Regardless of the nature of dental billing, the court found,
    plaintiffs’ causes of action for battery, lack of informed consent,
    9
    and breach of fiduciary duty would require inquiries into what
    information was known to individual patients and what consent
    was given.
    The court therefore concluded that plaintiffs failed to show
    that common questions of fact and law would predominate over
    individualized ones.
    Given that the plaintiffs failed to establish predominant
    common questions, the court found that manageability became a
    concern, yet plaintiffs offered no case plan by which litigation
    could avoid devolving into hundreds of mini-trials. The court
    therefore found that given the number of class members and
    significant amounts at issue—an average of $3,000 per patient—
    class management offered no benefit over litigating the matter
    individually.
    Therefore, the court denied certification.
    Plaintiffs appeal.
    DISCUSSION
    Plaintiffs contend the Johnson opinion was inadmissible
    and the court ignored their theory of recovery.
    A.     Standard of Review
    Code of Civil Procedure section 382 authorizes a suit to be
    tried as a class action “when the question is one of a common or
    general interest, of many persons, or when the parties are
    numerous, and it is impracticable to bring them all before the
    court.” Class certification requires demonstration of an
    ascertainable and sufficiently numerous class, a well-defined
    community of interest, and the superiority of proceeding as a
    class. (Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court (2012) 
    53 Cal.4th 1004
    , 1021 (Brinker).)
    10
    The “community of interest” requirement has three factors:
    (1) predominant common questions of law or fact; (2) class
    representatives with claims or defenses typical of the class; and
    (3) class representatives who can adequately represent the class.
    (Brinker, 
    supra,
     53 Cal.4th at p. 1021; Ayala v. Antelope Valley
    Newspapers, Inc. (2014) 
    59 Cal.4th 522
    , 529-530 (Ayala).)
    Generally, “ ‘if the defendant’s liability can be determined by
    facts common to all members of the class, a class will be certified
    even if the members must individually prove their damages.’ ”
    (Brinker, at p. 1022; Cochran v. Schwan’s Home Service, Inc.
    (2014) 
    228 Cal.App.4th 1137
    , 1142 (Cochran).)
    In reviewing a trial court’s denial of class certification, we
    examine “whether the operative legal principles, as applied to the
    facts of the case, render the claims susceptible to resolution on a
    common basis.” (Ayala, 
    supra,
     59 Cal.4th at p. 530; Brinker,
    
    supra,
     53 Cal.4th at pp. 1023-1025.) “ ‘The certification question
    is “essentially a procedural one that does not ask whether an
    action is legally or factually meritorious.” ’ ” (Brinker, at p. 1023.)
    Courts focus instead on what type of questions—common or
    individual—are likely to arise, and whether proceeding as a class
    action, as compared to other forms of action, is a superior method
    of resolving these questions. (Sav-On Drug Stores, Inc. v.
    Superior Court (2004) 
    34 Cal.4th 319
    , 327, 339 & fn. 10 (Sav-
    On).)
    “Although predominance of common issues is often a major
    factor in a certification analysis, it is not the only consideration.
    In certifying a class action, the court must also conclude that
    litigation of individual issues, including those arising from
    affirmative defenses, can be managed fairly and efficiently.
    [Citation.] ‘[W]hether in a given case affirmative defenses should
    11
    lead a court to approve or reject certification will hinge on the
    manageability of any individual issues.’ ” (Duran v. U.S. Bank
    Assn. (2014) 
    59 Cal.4th 1
    , 28-29.) “ ‘Individual issues do not
    render class certification inappropriate so long as such issues
    may effectively be managed.’ ” (Id. at p. 29.) “Trial courts must
    pay careful attention to manageability when deciding whether to
    certify a class action. In considering whether a class action is a
    superior device for resolving a controversy, the manageability of
    individual issues is just as important as the existence of common
    questions uniting the proposed class. If the court makes a
    reasoned, informed decision about manageability at the
    certification stage, the litigants can plan accordingly and the
    court will have less need to intervene later to control the
    proceedings.” (Ibid.)
    “We review the trial court’s ruling for abuse of discretion
    and generally will not disturb it, ‘ “unless (1) it is unsupported by
    substantial evidence, (2) it rests on improper criteria, or (3) it
    rests on erroneous legal assumptions.” ’ ” (Ayala, supra, 59
    Cal.4th at p. 530.) If the court’s “reasons for granting or denying
    certification . . . are erroneous, we must reverse, whether or not
    other reasons [could have been] relied upon [to] support[] the
    ruling.” (Ibid.; Cochran, supra, 228 Cal.App.4th at p. 1143.) In
    this respect, “ ‘appellate review of orders denying class
    certification differs from ordinary appellate review. Under
    ordinary appellate review, we do not address the trial court’s
    reasoning and consider only whether the result was correct.
    [Citation.] But when denying class certification, the trial court
    must state its reasons, and we must review those reasons for
    correctness. [Citation.] We may only consider the reasons stated
    by the trial court and must ignore any unexpressed reason that
    12
    might support the ruling.’ ” (Cochran, at p. 1143.) “In other
    words, we review only the reasons given by the trial court for
    denial of class certification, and ignore any other grounds that
    might support denial.” (Bartold v. Glendale Federal Bank (2000)
    
    81 Cal.App.4th 816
    , 829, overturned on other grounds due to
    Legislative Action in 2001 Cal. Legis. Serv. Ch. 560.)
    Because trial courts “ ‘are ideally situated to evaluate the
    efficiencies and practicalities of permitting group action,’ ” they
    are “ ‘afforded great discretion’ ” in evaluating the relevant
    factors and ruling on a class certification motion. (Sav-On, supra,
    34 Cal.4th at p. 326.)
    B.     The Court’s Denial of Certification Was Supported
    by Substantial, Admissible Evidence
    Plaintiffs argue that Johnson’s opinion contesting
    Manolescu’s opinion was inadmissible. We disagree.
    A “court may consider only admissible expert opinion
    evidence at class certification.” (Apple Inc. v. Superior Court
    (2018) 
    19 Cal.App.5th 1101
    , 1117 (Apple).) “The reasons for such
    a limitation are obvious. A trial court cannot make an informed
    or reliable determination on the basis of inadmissible expert
    opinion evidence. And certifying a proposed class based on
    inadmissible expert opinion evidence would merely lead to its
    exclusion at trial, imperiling continued certification of the class
    and wasting the time and resources of the parties and the court.”
    (Ibid.)
    We review the admissibility of evidence de novo. (Apple,
    supra, 19 Cal.App.5th at p. 1117.)
    “If a witness is testifying as an expert, his testimony in the
    form of an opinion is limited to such an opinion as is: [¶] (a)
    Related to a subject that is sufficiently beyond common
    13
    experience that the opinion of an expert would assist the trier of
    fact; and [¶] (b) Based on matter (including his special
    knowledge, skill, experience, training, and education) perceived
    by or personally known to the witness or made known to him at
    or before the hearing, whether or not admissible, that is of a type
    that reasonably may be relied upon by an expert in forming an
    opinion upon the subject to which his testimony relates, unless
    an expert is precluded by law from using such matter as a basis
    for his opinion.” (Evid. Code, § 801.) An opinion based in whole
    or in part on an improper matter may be excluded. (Id., § 803.)
    “[U]nder Evidence Code sections 801, subdivision (b), and
    802, the trial court acts as a gatekeeper to exclude expert opinion
    testimony that is (1) based on matter of a type on which an expert
    may not reasonably rely, (2) based on reasons unsupported by the
    material on which the expert relies, or (3) speculative.” (Sargon
    Enterprises, Inc. v. University of Southern California (2012) 
    55 Cal.4th 747
    , 771-772 (Sargon).) “This means that a court may
    inquire into, not only the type of material on which an expert
    relies, but also whether that material actually supports the
    expert’s reasoning. ‘A court may conclude that there is simply too
    great an analytical gap between the data and the opinion
    proffered.’ ” (Id. at p. 771.)
    In considering the expert evidence, a “trial court must
    examine the type of material on which an expert relies, whether
    that material actually supports the expert’s reasoning, and
    whether the expert’s methodology is sound.” (Apple, supra, 19
    Cal.App.5th at p. 1125.) “ ‘[T]he expert’s opinion may not be
    based “on assumptions of fact without evidentiary support.” ’ ”
    (Sargon, 
    supra,
     55 Cal.4th at p. 770.)
    14
    Here, Johnson opined that Manolescu’s central proposition,
    that Dr. Tash’s financial records offered common proof that he
    provided hands-on dentistry, was unsupported. She based this
    opinion on the information she reviewed about Tash’s practice,
    her own personal observations, and communications she had with
    Dr. Tash, his former staff, and his counsel. This is the sort of
    matter on which an expert may rely. (Evid. Code, § 801, subd. (b)
    [expert opinion may be based on matter “perceived by or
    personally known to the witness or made known to him at or
    before the hearing, whether or not admissible, that is of a type
    that reasonably may be relied upon by an expert”].) Johnson’s
    opinion was therefore admissible.
    Noting that Johnson interpreted the gist of Manolescu’s
    opinion to be that only Tash provided dental services, plaintiffs
    argue this constitutes an assumption that is inadmissible
    because it is unsupported by the evidence.
    First, Johnson’s interpretation of Manolescu’s position is
    not an assumption but at most a mischaracterization. One
    expert’s mischaracterization of another’s position does not render
    the first expert’s opinion inadmissible, merely unpersuasive.
    In any event, Johnson stated only that “the gist” of
    Manolescu’s declaration was that Tash alone provided services,
    and qualified that this was “what Ms. Manolescu [was] implying
    (if not outright stating).”
    This is a fair characterization. Tash, Manolescu and
    Johnson noted the participation of associate dentists. Tash
    declared that “a minimum of 10” associates worked at the
    practice. Johnson declared the practice was “associate-driven.”
    And Manolescu acknowledged that other dentists worked there.
    15
    But Manolescu’s declaration is virtually silent as to the
    associates’ contributions. She declared only that the associate
    dentists “did bill as well,” but their production was “far lower
    than what Dr. Tash billed,” and none treated the Mendezes or
    Ascencio.
    It is therefore fair to say that the gist of Manolescu’s
    opinion, and the clear implication, was that only Tash provided
    services.
    Plaintiffs argue that Johnson’s mischaracterization of
    Manolescu’s opinion “permeates and drives her remaining
    opinions” that Manolescu’s production numbers pertained only to
    Tash. But they admit Manolescu’s numbers did pertain only to
    Tash. We fail to see the error in Johnson claiming something
    that plaintiffs readily admit.
    Plaintiffs argue Johnson’s opinions are inadmissible
    because they are based upon matters which are not reasonably
    comparable. (See Sargon, 
    supra,
     55 Cal.4th at p. 770 [expert may
    not base opinion upon a comparison if the matters compared are
    not reasonably comparable].) This is so, they argue, because
    Johnson “focuses on” a billing dentist to challenge Manolescu’s
    conclusion that Tash was the treating dentist.
    Johnson’s opinion had nothing to do with any comparison
    between a billing and a treating dentist, she distinguished them
    to challenge Manolescu’s opinion that Doctor Number 1, the
    billing dentist, was also the treating dentist.
    We assume Manolescu meant to demonstrate that Tash’s
    activities could be distinguished from those of the associate
    dentists by selective billing queries made of the Soft Dent
    software, and in this manner class claims could be demonstrated
    by easily obtained common proof. But Manolescu showed no such
    16
    selection taking place—she referenced only Tash’s billings. It is
    therefore at least conceivable that selective billing queries would
    not have provided common proof of Tash’s treatment activities
    because a significant portion of work done by the associate
    dentists fell under Tash’s “Doctor Number 1” moniker in the
    billing. Indeed, Manolescu hinted as much when she declared
    that Tash billed far more than the other dentists.
    This was exactly Johnson’s opinion, which the trial court
    was entitled to credit.
    Plaintiffs argue that a community of interest and
    superiority of class treatment were supported by substantial
    evidence. But our review is to determine whether substantial
    evidence supported the trial court’s ruling, not whether it
    supported a ruling the court did not make.
    C.     The Court Considered Plaintiffs’ Theory of Recovery
    Plaintiffs argue the trial court relied on an erroneous legal
    assumption by ignoring their theory of recovery. They argue
    their theory is that Tash failed to disclose his disability and
    therefore performed unauthorized dentistry without providing
    informed consent. They argue that “contrary to the court’s
    characterization,” they are not seeking damages on a class basis
    for injuries sustained because Tash rendered treatment below the
    standard of care.
    To support the argument, plaintiffs cite one sentence from
    the court’s order denying certification: “Additionally, the class
    members would need to testify as to what injury, if any, was
    incurred.”
    We read this statement, which comes at the end of a
    discussion about what proof would establish that hands-on
    dentistry occurred, simply as describing the final element of
    17
    plaintiffs’ informed consent claim, not reflecting an assumption
    that plaintiffs claim personal injury caused by professional
    negligence.
    DISPOSITION
    The judgment is affirmed. Respondents are to recover their
    costs on appeal.
    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
    CHANEY, J.
    We concur:
    ROTHSCHILD, P. J.
    BENDIX, J.
    18
    

Document Info

Docket Number: B326232

Filed Date: 12/8/2023

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 12/8/2023