 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Syfu v. Quinn5/5/2005
1988) (holding that expert testimony is unnecessary when orthopedic surgeon failed to remove two pieces of cement, totaling one-inch in diameter, after affixing prosthesis for hip replacement), overruled on other grounds by, Vergara by Vergara v. Doan, 593 N.E.2d 185 (Ind. 1992); Ciesiolka v. Selby, 261 N.E.2d 95 (Ind. Ct. App. 1970) (finding that jury did not need expert testimony to conclude that doctor negligently left mesh in patient's abdomen); Other types of medical malpractice actions have also been sent to the jury without the aid of expert testimony. In Gold v. Ishak, 720 N.E.2d 1175 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999), trans. denied, for example, this court concluded that expert testimony is not required because a fire occurring during surgery where an instrument that emits a spark is used near a source of oxygen is not beyond the realm of the lay person to understand. See also Stumph v. Foster, 524 N.E.2d 812 (Ind. Ct. App. 1988) (holding that the jury did not need expert testimony to decide a chiropractor negligently broke his patient's rib during treatment for migraine headaches).
Here, the record reveals that an anesthesiologist exercising due care must elevate a patient's head several times during the course of a prolonged surgery in order to avoid pressure upon the globe of the eye from the Opti-Gard. The record further reveals that prolonged pressure to the skin can cause a permanent breakdown of the skin, resulting in necrosis and scarring. In this case, uncontested testimonial evidence shows that Dr. Syfu elevated Quinn's head to relieve pressure off of her face every half hour to forty-five minutes during the eight-hour surgery. However, Dr. Syfu's conduct and the medical reasons for alleviating pressure off of a patient's face during prolonged surgery are matters not within the realm of a laypersons knowledge and thus require expert testimony. Therefore, we decline to extend the "common knowledge" exception to the facts of this case. Accordingly, Quinn has failed to establish the second prong of the res ipsa loquitur doctrine, or to establish a genuine issue of material fact regarding its application here.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the trial court erred in denying Dr. Syfu's Motion for Summary Judgment.
Reversed and remanded with instructions to enter summary judgment for Dr. Syfu.
SULLIVAN, J., and NAJAM, J., concur.
|