After trial, the decision of the Court is: Judgment for defendant.

In this action involving dental work performed by defendant on claimant, claimant contends that defendant represented to claimant that the original amount quoted to her at her initial office visit on October 29, 2020 ($3,410.00) was the full amount that claimant would have to for the entire procedure related to her No.25 tooth, including the implantation of a replacement tooth. In this regard, claimant presents a document entitled "Treatment Case," which indicates the total cost for an anticipated four visits would be $3,410.00. However, the same document also indicates that this price is an "estimate." Moreover, the Treatment Case also specifically indicates that "sometimes a procedure is required during surgery that is not covered by your insurance plan and may be an additional charge." This is what apparently occurred in this instance. Specifically, the October 29, 2020 Treatment Case, which contemplated four office visits, also referenced a CT scan of claimant's jaw. As defendant testified, these images were necessary to evaluate whether the jaw (mandible) was such that an implant could be inserted. In claimant's case, unfortunately, the CT scan came back indicating that there were unforeseen problems with the implantation site such that a bone graft would be required prior to implantation. This additional procedure took place on December 10, 2020 as indicated on a subsequent Treatment Case document. The cost of this additional procedure was stated as $3,910.00, although, after a "professional courtesy" credit indicated on the Single Patient Ledger for claimant, claimant was required (and did) pay $3,073.50 (not including the $510 claimant had already paid for the consultation, X-rays and CT scan). After two postoperative visits on January 5, 2021 and February 16, 2021, for which there was no fee, claimant visited defendant's office on September 11, 2021 with the intention of proceeding with the implantation of the replacement #25 tooth. When she was informed that there would be a fee for the implantation, and that the money she had previously spent in relation to the bone graft was separate and apart from the implantation fee, claimant declined to proceed.

The Court has no doubt that claimant genuinely believed that the total amount she would have to pay for the entire procedure, culminating in the implantation of a replacement #25 tooth, was $3,410.00. However, it is equally clear to the Court that this belief was based on a misunderstanding. The initial Treatment Case document contemplates the estimated cost where [*2]there are no complications. However, it is not unusual that after a dentist reviews x-rays and CT scans, complications are discovered that require an interim procedure before the patient is able to undergo the originally intended procedure. That is what happened here. Indeed, for this reason, in the "Consent for Periodontal Dental Surgery" signed by claimant, claimant expressly acknowledged that "I further understand that unforeseen conditions may call for modification or change from the anticipated surgical plan."

In the end, the cost estimate indicated in the initial Treatment Case document was not a contract, and even if it was, there was no breach of said contract as the $3,410.00 price quote clearly was an estimate and clearly did not include a major intervening procedure such as the prerequisite bone graft.

Further, there is no allegation of any promised result, and even if there was, claimant signed a Consent for Periodontal Surgery that states "I hereby acknowledge that no guarantee, warranty or assurance has been given to me that the proposed treatment will be successful . . . . Due to individual, patient differences . . . a periodontist cannot predict certainty of success." See, Agaeva v. Bay Ridge Dental Grp., P.C., 2015 NY Slip Op 50908(U) (App Term, 2d Dept. 2015).

Although it does not appear that claimant is asserting negligence on the part of defendant in relation to the quality of the dental work performed, to the extent that she is, such claims are dismissed due to the lack of an expert witness testifying that defendant departed from accepted dental practices. See, Prosina v. Tone, 808 N.Y.S.2d 920 (App Term, 1st Dept. 2005); Streeter v. Ackerman, 2003 NY Slip Op 51199(U) (App Term, 1st Dept. 2003).

ORDERED that judgment is entered in favor of defendant and the action is dismissed in its entirety without costs or disbursements.

This is the decision and order of the Court.