Claims of Fraudulent and Negligent Misrepresentations Asserted Against Dentist Who Claimed Treatments Were Perfect Dismissed

In the case of Marcus v. Hazzouri, No. 2023-CV-5092 (C.P. Lacka. Co. May 27, 2025 Nealon, J.), the court sustained certain Preliminary Objections filed by a Defendant in a dental malpractice case.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff sued her former dentist alleging malpractice and lack of informed consent related to the alleged negligent installation of contra indicated mini-implants that later had to be removed and replaced with conventional implants.

The Plaintiff alleged that the dentist falsely stated that the mini-implants and his dental treatments were “perfect” and “going smoothly.” Based on these allegations, the Plaintiff additionally asserted claims of fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation, as a result of which misrepresentations the Plaintiff was reportedly unable to discovery her injury or the dentist’s negligence until she consulted with and treated with a different dental practice.

The Defendant dentist filed a demurrer to the fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation causes of action on the basis that those claims were duplicative of the Plaintiff’s malpractice claims and informed consent claims and were also unsupported by claims of separate damages.

The court granted the demurrer and noted that the only consequence alleged by the Plaintiff relative to the dentist’s representation involved the Plaintiff’s inability to discovery that the implants had failed due to the dentist’s conduct until the Plaintiff sought and received treatment from another dental group. Accordingly, the court ruled that the Plaintiff’s fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation claims were dismissed as legally insufficient due to the absence of any resultant damages.

However, the court noted that the statements allegedly made by the dentist would remain relevant to the matter in terms of any statute of limitations determination under the discovery rule and the fraudulent concealment doctrine.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.

Source of image:  Photo by Enis Yavuz on www.unsplash.com.

Proper Jurisdiction for Social Media Defamation Claim Reviewed

In the case of Gorman v. Shpetrik, No. 2:20-CV-04759-CMR (E.D. Pa. March 10, 2022 Rufe, J.), the court addressed jurisdiction issues, and other issues, arising out of a claim of defamation related to online post and tweets that allegedly damaged the Plaintiff’s reputation.

With regard to the jurisdiction issue, the court found that the defendant allegedly directed allegedly defamatory messages to a person within the jurisdiction, with the intent to damage the reputation of another person also in that jurisdiction.  The court found that the defendant had therefore been involved in activity expressly directed at the jurisdiction such that the exercise of personal jurisdiction was proper over the case presented.

Relative to a statute of limitations issues raised by one of the Defendants, the court noted that the limitations period began to run when defamatory material was published.

The court also noted that the Plaintiff’s lack of knowledge as to the Defendant’s identity could not support an application of the discovery rule under the facts presented in this case. 

However, the court found that the Plaintiff had sufficiently pled a claim of fraudulent concealment by alleging that the Defendant had provided false information when registering on the social media platforms on which the allegedly defamatory material was allegedly published. As such, the court allowed discovery on this issue before making a determination as to whether the doctrine of fraudulent concealment could serve to toll the statute of limitations on some of the Plaintiff’s claims in this matter.

The court additionally dismissed the Plaintiff’s claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress after finding that this claim failed because the Plaintiff had not alleged any physical injury connected to or caused by the Plaintiff’s alleged emotional distress.

The court also found that the Plaintiff’s claims for civil conspiracy failed because the Plaintiff had not alleged that all members of the purported conspiracy shared a common purpose, but rather, merely alleged that they took acts that furthered the alleged purpose of the conspiracy.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.  The Court's companion Order can be viewed HERE.


Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (April 6, 2022).

Discovery Rule Related to Statute of Limitations Reviewed

The discovery rule pertinent to the statute of limitations was reviewed in the case of Vidra v. Hertz Corp., No. 18-2939 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 4, 2018 Beetlestone, J.)(mem.op.).  

This case arose out of a motor vehicle accident that occurred in 2012.  The Plaintiff, who was pro se, asserted that he had rented a Camaro from Hertz and that, due to a defect in the vehicle, the rental vehicle suddenly accelerated outside of his control and was involved in an accident. 

Two people in the other vehicle involved in the accident died in the accident  The Plaintiff was convicted of homicide by vehicle and sentenced to 22 years in prison. 

The Plaintiff continued to assert a defect with the vehicle and alleged that Hertz did not cooperate in his efforts to uncover the defect.

The Defendants removed the Plaintiff's state court Complaint to federal court and filed a motion to dismiss.

In this matter, the court ruled that it was apparent on the face of the Plaintiff’s Complaint that the statute of limitations had run.   The Plaintiff pled in his Complaint that he had complained about a product defect to the police at the time of the accident, but waited more than six (6) years to file a lawsuit.

The court noted that traumatic injuries from a motor vehicle accident are immediately apparent, triggering a Plaintiff’s inquiry notice, such that the statute of limitations begins to run immediately.   The court stated that, as automobile accidents are specific events, a burden is placed upon the injured party to determine whether the other parties involved in the accident might be liable for any potential injuries.

The court found that an argument of fraudulent concealment did not apply in this matter because, even if the Defendants had refused to respond to the Plaintiff’s inquiries, the Defendants did nothing to cause the Plaintiff to relax his vigilance in determining the cause of his injuries.   

The court additionally noted that silence cannot be considered to be fraud unless there is an affirmative duty to disclose due to a fiduciary or similar relationship between the parties.   In this regard, the court stated that product sellers do not have a special relationship with product consumers in this context.  

Anyone wishing to review of a copy of this decision may click this LINK.  The companion Order can be viewed HERE.

I send thanks to Attorney James M. Beck of the Philadelphia office of the Reed Smith law firm from bringing this case to my attention.