on the side of her left thigh caused by an electric used during surgery. The prerequisites for apply the doctrine were satisfied by evidence that the in defendant's negligence. In merely shafts the burden of going forward in the defendant who must argue to dismiss the cir- unusual, the surgeon had exclusive control over Ball Invcoagulator, and the patient could not have coughs umuntil evidence presented an "speaking for theit" An inference of negligence in peromitted from the mere to the injury. Accordor of an bjury when the defendant owed a duty and The oxygen mask discussed in Gold v. Ishekil candy possessed the sole power of preventing the injury by ever- during surgery. In performing surgery, the physician way cise of reasonable care. For example, the presence of severe electrocautery unit provided by the hospital. Al west barts of a palimi's body after being bathed by an employce during surgery, the oxygen mask caught on fire, bad alsoi the question of negligence without the need for expert tient was injured. A claim of negligent treatment by intheory: Negiprice is comidand won obvious that expert serited to a medical review panel, which concluded testimony is not necessary, It lies within a layperson's realm of knowledge that people procrally do not suffer burns from medical providers had complied with the requisite got of care. The plaintiff then filed a a back. That'slong is suf belent to respace a defendant to comic iled a complaint against the test Forward with a nobunal. The theres clements necessary to shift cal providers for medical malpractice. The trial count the burden of proof from the plaintiff to the defendant under to apply the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. the doctrine of res ipos loquitur are as follows On appeal, the trial court was found to have crosby , I. The event would not normally have occurred in the fusing to apply the doctrine of res ipsi loquitus. The end presented at trial, as described here, clearly shows the clements necessary for the inference of res ipsa loqutar ly 1 The defendant must have had exclusive control over been established: the intrumentality that caused the injury. 3. The plaintiff must not have comerbuted to the injury. 1. The injuring instrumentality was under the mings ment or exclusive control of the medical provider An action was brought against the nursing facility in Funding Collies Chapel Comecional Hay had to recover 2. A fire under these circumstances is such that is the damages for the wrongful death of an 83-year-old resident ordinary course of things would not have occult Extensive thermal berm were discovered soon after an at- the medical providers had used proper care in stain cendant butbed the resident. The complaint sought to invoke to the electrocautery unit and oxygen mask. the doctrine of rei ipia loquitur because the injuries suffered by the resident do not occur in the absence of negligence. 3. Expert testimony is not required because a free and the decedent was in the defendant's sole care, custody, curring during surgery where an instrument that and control. emits a spark is used near a source of oxygen is ma The trial court entered a judgment for the nursing facil- beyond the realm of the layperson to understand It by pursuare to a jury verdict, and the administrators of the estate appealed. The appeals court held that proof that the is easily understandable to the common pers ta barsing facility had exclusive control over the bath wherein careless use of the two could cause a fire and wait burns were allegedly suffered and that the burra normally in bodily injury. would not occur absent negligence entitled the administra- ton to a jury instruction on the doctrine of res ipaa loquitur. The mine was reversed and remanded for a new trial. The general rule for all cases of circumstantial evidence. both ordinary negligence cases and res ipsa loquitur cases, in that, to make his of her case, the plaintiff does not have to RES IPSA LOQUITUR eliminate all other possible causes of inferences other than AND EXCLUSIVE that of the defendant's negligence, and it is enough for him CONTROL or her if the evidence makes such negligence more probable than any other cause." Citation: Seavers v. Methodist Medical Center of Burn by Electrocautery Unit Oak Ridge, 9 S.W.30 86 (Tenn. 1999) Facts The paricut in Mack v. Lydia E. Hall Hospital was properly permitted to imjoke the doctrine of res ipaa loqui- While in the intensive care unit (CUL a nurse tur in her suit to recover dimages for a third-degree burn note indicated that the grip in appellant-Scaners! right hand was weaker than that in her left hand Both of her hands had been placed in wrist restraintsRes low Loquitur 117 astuned to bed rais, to prevent her from puling out her endotracheal tube. When the endotracheal tube was removed and the appelant could speak, she judgment for the medical center. The court of ap. complained that her right arm was numb; Servers peels held that res ipaa log a loquitur did not apply be- had suffered severe damage to her right ulnar nerve. Chuse the appellant's injury was not within the com- The appellant and her husband filed suit against the mon knowledge of baypersons. Issue medical center, aleging that the injury was the result of the nurses negligently restraining her arm. She Does the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur apply in this case? later amended her complaint to include the theory of res ipsa loquitur. Holding The medical center filed a motion for summary The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur may be applied judgment, supported by the affidavits of two ex- in this case. parts. Both experts opined that the nerve damage Reason In the appellant's right arm was "of unknown ctiol- ogy" and that the injury could have developed dur The partins agreed that the appellant was under the exclusive control and care of the medical center Ing her stay in the ICU without any deviation from when the nerve injury occurred. The record further standards of professional care. shows that the appelant's right arm and hand were The appellant opposed the medical center's fully functional when she entered the medical center's motion for summary judgment, arguing that there IGU and that no problem was detected until the ICU were genuine issues of material fact. The appellant's nurses noticed that the grip in her right hand was usponse was supported by the deposition of Na- not as strong as the grip in her left hand. During that telson, a neurosurgeon, and the affidavits of both time, the appelant was heavily sedated, restrained. Natelson and Woodworth, a registered nurse who and under the complete care of the ICU nurses. worked in the ICU. Both Natelson and Woodworth Based on EMG results, the appellant has shown that the dysfunction in her right arm resulted from dam- opined that the appellant was under the exclusive age to her right ulnar norve. According to Natelson control and care of the medical center's nursing this injury was likely caused by prolonged pressure staff when the nerve injury occurred. Natelson and on the nerve from a hard object such as a bed ral Woodworth stated that when treating ICU patients This theory was comoborated by evidence that the who are unconscious or under heavy sedation or appellant's arms were strapped to the hospital bed restraint, the standard of professional care requires during her stay in the ICU. The appellant satisfied th the protection of the patients' extremities so that in- res ipsa loquitur requirements under Tennessee cod juries to the ulnar nerves do not occur. Based on and raised a genuine issue of material fact on the a their independent review of the appellant's medical legation of negligence. Summary judgment in favor records and electromyography (EMG) results, they the medical center was improper in this case. opined that the injury was the type that would not Discussion have occurred if the nursing staff had upheld the 1. Was the appellant's injury within the common standard of care. knowledge of laypersons? Discuss your answe Finding no genuine issues of material fact, the trial 2. What procedures should the medical center court granted the medical center's motion for sum- implement to reduce the likelihood of similar mary judgment. A majority of the court of appeals Documentes? affirmed the trial court's order granting summary