Opinion ID: 2524869
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: verdict in dr. toal's favor

Text: ¶ 14 On appeal Ms. Franklin contends that Dr. Toal admitted all of the elements of negligence, leaving no substantial controversy. The elements of negligence are: (a) a duty owed by the defendant to protect the plaintiff from injury, (b) a failure to properly exercise or perform that duty and (c) plaintiff's injuries proximately caused by the defendant's failure to exercise [the] duty of care. Thompson v. Presbyterian Hospital Inc., 1982 OK 87, ¶ 7, 652 P.2d 260, 263. A medical provider has a duty to exercise ordinary care in delivery of professional services. Jackson v. Oklahoma Mem'l Hosp., 1995 OK 112, ¶ 13, 909 P.2d 765, 772. Generally, the question of negligence is one for the jury. Flanders v. Crane Co., 1984 OK 88, ¶ 16, 693 P.2d 602, 607; Agee v. Gant, 1966 OK 31, ¶ 16, 412 P.2d 155, 158. However, the question of negligence is for the court to decide if only one inference can reasonably be drawn from the evidence. Agee, 1966 OK 31 at ¶ 16, 412 P.2d at 158. ¶ 15 In giving evidence on the standard of ordinary care, both Dr. Toal and his expert witness, Dr. Bodenhamer, testified that it was Dr. Toal's duty to remove the pad. Dr. Bodenhamer testified that leaving the pad in was not ordinary medical care and that it was an avoidable event. Failure to remove the pad was a breach of the duty as articulated by both Dr. Toal and Dr. Bodenhamer and was the proximate cause of Ms. Franklin's injury. Based on Dr. Toal's admissions that it was his duty to remove the pad, no judgment was involved in the failing to remove the phrenic pad. He simply forgot to remove the pad, and there was no excuse for failing to remove the pad. The only reasonable inference to be drawn from the evidence in the present case was that Dr. Toal was negligent. ¶ 16 We emphasize that the standard of care for medical providers for failing to remove foreign objects from an surgical opening remains ordinary care, not strict liability. Jackson, 1995 OK 112 at ¶ 13, 909 P.2d at 772. We reaffirm our decision in Boyanton v. Reif, 1990 OK 83, 798 P.2d 603, where we stated: The question in professional malpractice suits is not whether a physician has made a mistake, but whether he has used `ordinary care'.... Id. at ¶ 7, 798 P.2d at 604. Recognizing that much of what a medical provider does is a matter of opinion, this Court stated: [A medical practitioner] is not responsible for a mistake in judgment unless that mistake is so gross that it makes the professional conduct substandard. Id. at ¶ 7, 798 P.2d at 605. In the present case, no judgment was involved, and if Dr. Toal had remembered the phrenic pad he would have removed it. The evidence lends itself to only one inference: Dr. Toal breached his stated duty to use ordinary care. ¶ 17 Dr. Toal attempts to avert liability by arguing that his attention was diverted from the pad and properly focused on Ms. Franklin's irritable heart. However, he admitted that his attentiveness to these usual incidents involved in an ADS repair was not a justification for failing to remove the pad. Further, reliance on the correct sponge count did not relieve Dr. Toal of his duty to remove the phrenic pad. Aderhold v. Stewart, 1935 OK 479, 46 P.2d 340, 342-43. None of the factors on which Dr. Toal relies legally excuses his failure to remove the phrenic nerve pad.