Opinion ID: 2176082
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: st. mary's medical center

Text: Plaintiff alleged two theories of liability against St. Mary's Medical Center: first, that the hospital was negligent because it did not provide a neurosurgeon to assist Dr. Schanz; and, second, under a res ipsa loquitur theory, that plaintiff would have suffered no injury absent negligence on the part of Mark Nichols. In a medical malpractice case, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving: (1) the applicable standard of care, (2) breach of that standard by defendant, (3) injury, and (4) proximate causation between the alleged breach and the injury. [27] Failure to prove any one of these elements is fatal. Furthermore, evidence of a bad result alone is not sufficient to prevail under the theory of res ipsa loquitur. [28] Where a plaintiff raises res ipsa loquitur in the medical malpractice context, we require that the plaintiff prove that the event (1) is of a kind that ordinarily does not occur in the absence of someone's negligence, (2) is caused by an agency or instrumentality within the exclusive control of defendant, and (3) is not due to any voluntary action or contribution on the part of the plaintiff. [29] Plaintiff in this case did not establish a prima facie case under either of his theories of recovery. During Dr. Ignelzi's cross-examination by St. Mary's, he specifically stated that the standard of care for PLIF surgery did not require a second doctor in assistance and that Mark Nichols had not violated any standard of care applicable to an operating room technician. In considering St. Mary's motion for a directed verdict at the close of plaintiff's case, the trial judge observed: My recollection of the evidence is that there is no credible evidence as to the liability of the defendant hospital. However, I know that this is a drastic remedy, and I don't want to trust my own recollection ... because I know it's a drastic remedy. The Court of Appeals may overturn a jury verdict only if it is against the great weight of evidence. [30] In its summary reversal of the trial court, the Court of Appeals failed to distinguish its reasoning for reversal of the verdict of no cause of action with respect to St. Mary's Medical Center from its reversal of the verdict with respect to Dr. Schanz. The plaintiff's theories against each defendant were separate and distinct, and it is apparent from the record that plaintiff failed to carry the burden of proof against St. Mary's. We reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals with regard to both St. Mary's and Dr. Schanz and reinstate the trial court's verdict of no cause of action.