The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P consulted D for gum recession and root exposure. D consented to a tissue graft. D began the procedure and determined that instead, he would perform a flap procedure. This procedure follows the same preliminary step as the graft, but after incision, the periodontist applies a protein, Emdogain, to the gum to help it adhere to the tooth, and no graft is made. P was surprised that he did not receive a graft. The procedure did not achieve full results and P still had to undergo a tissue graft. P sued D for lack of informed consent, and battery. D filed for summary judgment in that P was not battered because the flap procedure was within the bounds of P's consent. The court concluded that D performed surgery on an area to which P consented, and choosing to perform a less-invasive procedure did not commit battery. P appealed.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.