Court Opinion

ID: 9709445
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 03:48:01.227395+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:48.972232
License: Public Domain

BARTEAU, Judge,
dissenting.
Expert testimony was not required to defeat the motion for summary judgment. In malpractice cases, the tort of negligence is comprised of three elements, (1) duty, (2) failure to conform to the requisite standard of care, and (8) proximate causation. Burke v. Capello (1988), Ind., 520 N.E.2d 489. Expert medical testimony is generally required *351on the second element because the technical and complicated nature of medical treatment makes it impossible for the trier of fact to apply the standard of care without the benefit of expert opinion on the ultimate question of breach of duty. Id.
However, not all cases of medical negli-genee require expert testimony. Wright v. Carter (1993), Ind., 622 N.E.2d 170. Expert medical testimony is not required where the "allegedly negligent act or omission is so obvious as to allow plaintiffs to rely on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur." Id. at 171. As Justice Shepard noted in Wright, "[JJuries do not need an expert to help them conclude, say, that it is malpractice to operate by mistake on the wrong limb." Id. at 171. Such is the case here. The act in question was the careless placement on an anesthetized patient's leg of a recently sterilized, scalding hot, unused and unneeded surgical instrument. - There is nothing technical or complicated about this fact scenario. It is within the capability of the ordinary finder of fact to assess whether this act conformed to the standard of care.
The majority attempts to distinguish this line of cases by arguing that expert medical testimony is nevertheless required on the issue of whether supervision of surgical staff falls within the standard of care of a surgeon in this or a similar locality. This stretches too far the rationale for requiring expert testimony in medical matters. The scope of a surgeon's supervision of surgical staff is not technical or complicated, and would vary from person to person. An average finder of fact is quite capable of determining whether the degree of supervision a surgeon exercised at a given time complied with the requisite standard of care.
Further, the "expert" testimony presented by Schweikher was his own affidavit stating that he was familiar with the standard of care and had complied with it, and the affidavit of the individual who actually placed the hot instrument on Simms, stating that Scehweikher did not control her placement of instruments. I question whether a self-serving affidavit by the defendant, and an affidavit by a surgical technician amount to qualified "expert" testimony sufficient to require Simms to come forward with expert medical testimony of her own.
Nevertheless, because of the cireum-stances, the burn to Simms gives rise to an inference of negligence. - Because Dr. Schweikher had exclusive control of Simms, the inference of negligence arises as to him. Wright, 622 N.E.2d at 172. Expert testimony was not necessary to defeat the motion for summary judgment and the same should be reversed accordingly.