
    Margaret Domurad vs. Mary W. Hill, executrix.
    
    January 12, 1993.
    
      Practice, Civil, Death of party. Dentist.
    
    
      John F. Finnerty, Jr., for the defendant.
    
      Ronald Nacamuli for the plaintiff.
    
      
       Under the will of Robert G. Hill. The plaintiff also named Donald R. Sydor as a defendant. The jury returned a verdict favorable to Sydor and neither party appealed. Hill impleaded North Shore Dental Porcelain Laboratories, Inc. The jury returned a verdict in favor of North Shore and, again, neither party appealed.
    
   We granted the defendant’s application for further appellate review. The Appeals Court affirmed the judgment in an unpublished memorandum and order pursuant to Appeals Court Rule 1:28. 32 Mass. App. Ct. 1115 (1992).

The defendant’s motion to dismiss was correctly denied. The defendant did not follow the rule. Mass. R. Civ. P. 25 (a) (1), 365 Mass. 771 (1974). We have said that the burden is on the decedent’s representative to comply with the rule. See Federal Ins. Co. v. Ronan, 407 Mass. 921 (1990).

The evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff was sufficient. In discussing the standard to be applied, the Appeals Court correctly determined that a dentist is held to the same standard as a physician or surgeon on the question of patient abandonment. See Berardi v. Menicks, 340 Mass. 396, 400-402 (1960); Borysewicz v. Dineen, 302 Mass. 461, 463-464 (1939); Vigneault v. Dr. Hewson Dental Co., 300 Mass. 223, 225 (1938). See Annot., Liability of Physician Who Abandons Case, 57 A.L.R.2d 432 (1958); Annot., Liability of Dentist to Patient, 83 A.L.R.2d 7 (1962).

Judgment of the Superior Court affirmed.  