Verdicts

Plaintiff, who discovered surgical gauze had been left behind after her facial surgery, was not precluded from relying on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur at trial, so the fact that she offered no expert testimony was not a valid basis for a grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant. Pete v. Youngblood, '- P.3d ”, 2006 WL 2021737 (Utah App.), 2006 UT App 303 (7/20/06).

In 1970, plaintiff was injured in a horse-racing accident. Defendant Dr. Robert L. Youngblood, a plastic surgeon, performed surgery to repair her facial injuries. During the surgery, Dr. Youngblood wired together a number of bones and placed gauze in the surgical site for stability. Approximately 2 weeks later, he removed gauze and sutures. Although plaintiff saw Dr. Youngblood for three follow-up visits, no additional gauze was removed during these appointments. Over the next 30 years, plaintiff suffered from persistent and painful sinus infections, swelling, and headaches. Despite treatment by her family physician and a specialist, she was unable until 2001 to determine that the cause of her problems was a piece of gauze left behind in her cheek. After the gauze was removed, plaintiff's infection, pain, and headaches stopped. She filed suit for medical malpractice in 2003.