Facts:

The plaintiff, Jonathan Epps, a minor, through his mother, Sally Epps, sued a pedodontist, Dr. Marvin Konbar. A pedodontist is a dentist specializing in the treatment of children's teeth. The allegation of malpractice was that, as a result of the defendant's negligent treatment, he developed root resorption in several of his teeth, necessitating years of expensive corrective procedures and the likely loss of the affected teeth. At trial, plaintiff's counsel called Dr. Vlad Plosky, an orthodontist, to testify as an expert in orthodontia. Toward the end of this witness's testimony, the plaintiff attempted to elicit an opinion about the requisite standard of care of a pedodontist engaging in specified interceptive orthodontic treatments.

1. In your opinion, should the plaintiff have calledDr. Plosky as an expert witness?
2. In which subject is Dr. Plosky an expert?
3. What arguments might the defense make against the testimony of Dr. Plosky?
4. If Dr. Plosky testifies as to the standard of care should that opinion be dispositive? Why or why not?