Christie v. Krant
Plaintiff Kathleen Christie appeals from the judgment of the trial court in favor of defendant Stephen Krant, M.D., on her causes of action for medical negligence and breach of contract. Dr. Krant performed plastic surgery on Christie in October 2004. Unhappy with the results of the procedures, Christie filed suit against Dr. Krant in December 2005. The trial court granted Dr. Krant's motion for summary judgment as to Christie's claims, concluding that Dr. Krant had presented uncontradicted evidence that he complied with the appropriate standard of care when performing the surgery, and that he had not breached any agreement with Christie.
On appeal, Christie makes a number of arguments, many of which involve the same general issue and either were not raised in the trial court or appear to be beyond the scope of the legal issues Christie raised in her lawsuit. Christie's main assertion is that she presented sufficient evidence to raise triable issues of material fact as to whether she consented to the removal of three pockets of herniated fat from her lower eyelid. Court conclude that Christie has presented no admissible evidence to create a triable issue of fact, and that the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of Dr. Krant.
Comments on Christie v. Krant