Chism testified that after the surgery she noticed that the inside of her lower lip was cut and that a tooth was loose. She saw a dentist who found that a tooth had been broken inside the gum area. Chism testified that her tooth eventually had to be removed along with some bone. Chism sought damages from the surgeon, the anesthesiologist, and the hospital. Her lawyer relied solely on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur and introduced no evidence of negligence.
Summary judgment is available to any party in a lawsuit.
The court assumes that the facts alleged in any pleading or presented in any deposition, affidavit, or stipulation relied upon by the opposing party are correct but, that nonetheless, the party seeking summary judgment is still entitled to judgment as a matter of law. For example, let us assume that a nurse anesthetist is working in a hospital with an anesthesiologist when the anesthesiologist, working alone, makes a mistake and injures a patient. The patient sues both the nurse anesthetist and the anesthesiologist. Without some proof as to the nurse anesthetist's involvement in the case, there is no theory of law by which the nurse anesthetist would be liable. In the Chism case, the defendants' motion for summary judgment was designed to test whether Chism had produced enough evidence.