Kane v. Shoup

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• affirming trial court's ruling that the plaintiffs' claims were time-barred because the plaintiffs produced no evidence that would toll the applicable statute of limitation
• no subsequent injury when braces and surgery recommended three years after orthodontist failed to properly correct lower jaw condition
• exception did not apply when uncontroverted evidence showed that the alleged misdiagnosis merely delayed treatment of plaintiff’s initial injury, without resulting in the development of any new, separate injuries
• failure of dentist to properly evaluate and treat plaintiffs overbite analyzed as misdiagnosis case
• because fraud cannot be presumed in the context of misrepresentations about medical treatment, plaintiffs’ failure to produce evidence of fraud meant that the statute of limitation was not tolled
• surgery and additional bracing needed because of delay in correcting lower jaw condition

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).