In support of his summary judgment motion, Dr. Schweikher presented his own affidavit stating that his conduct during surgery was within the applicable standard of care. He also presented the surgical technician's affidavit, in which she admitted that her independent act caused Simms' injury and that Dr. Schweikher did not control her placement of instruments during the procedure. The trial court concluded that Simms raised no genuine issue of material fact and summary judgment was appropriate. The crux of Simms' argument on appeal is that Dr. Schweikher's conduct fell below the standard of care because the surgical technician under his apparent supervision acted negligently. Although Simms presented no expert testimony in support of her position, she attempts to circumvent the expert testimony requirement by arguing that the realm of Dr. Schweikher's supervisory responsibilities during surgery is not a question requiring medical expertise, but instead is an understandable matter within the common knowledge of laypersons.
Simms argument is without merit.
Cases which do not require expert testimony generally involve the physician's failure to remove surgical implements or foreign objects from the patient's body. The rationale underlying these cases is that the facts themselves are sufficient to raise an inference of negligence without expert testimony. This rationale is inapplicable to the case at bar, in which the supervisory capacity of a surgeon is at issue. We do not believe that the complex roles and responsibilities of surgeons and hospital staff assisting with surgery are within the common knowledge of laypersons. Without testimony from a medical expert indicating that supervision of surgical staff falls within the standard of care of a surgeon in this or a similar locality, we cannot infer that Dr. Schweikher was negligent by failing to prevent the surgical technician's injurious act.