Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Oliver agreed to undergo surgery to remove his left kidney, thus removing an early-found, nonlethal local cancer. Dr. Brown (D) controlled the da Vinci surgical robot from the control station six feet away with his back turned to the patient. Dr. Emery (D) was stationed at the bedside manipulating a handheld stapler, the placement and firing of which was controlled jointly by both Ds. It is unknown the exact mechanism of the injury to Oliver's aorta because there is scant detail in the medical record of the event. Dr. Brown's (D) entire description of the unexpected catastrophic injury consists of one sentence: 'A vascular stapler was utilized to secure the hilum, and there was an injury to the aorta.' Dr. Brown (D) does not describe how the injury occurred or what caused it. Dr. Jay Jeffrey, one of the surgeons brought in emergently to repair the aortic injury, describes the injury as 'near circumferential,' meaning that the large main artery where blood flowed was nearly severed in two. At no time during the surgery was there any medical purpose to cut or injure Oliver's aorta. Oliver lost five liters of blood, an amount equal to the entirety of a typical human's blood supply, and his organs began to die. He died twenty-five days later. P, as special administrator of the Estate, filed a medical-malpractice case. The circuit court granted Ds' motions. The court found that P had not come forward with proof from a qualified expert to establish to a reasonable degree of medical certainty or probability that some action or inaction of Ds fell below the standard of care and proximately caused the injury that would not have otherwise occurred. The circuit court found that experts for both P and Ds opined that mechanical failure of the medical staple device could cause the injuries absent the negligence of the Ds, and therefore, the application of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was not appropriate under the facts presented in this case. P appealed, claiming the court erroneously applied res ipsa loquitur.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The applicable rule of law for this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.