Leonard v. Watsonville Community Hospital

Supreme Court of California · Torts

TortsRes ipsa loquiturMedical negligenceNonsuitres ipsa loquiturforeign object in bodyunconscious patientmedical malpractice

Facts

During a five-hour operation at defendant hospital, a six-inch Kelly clamp was left in plaintiff's abdomen while she was unconscious. Doctors Lacy and Slegal began the operation, hospital employee Kay Pogatschnik acted as surgical nurse, and Doctor Eiskamp assisted only in removing a mass in the lower left quadrant and left before final closure. The hospital furnished the instruments and the nurse handled instruments during surgery; no instrument count was requested, and the hospital had no established practice of counting instruments before or after surgery. X-rays taken about six months later revealed the clamp in the upper right quadrant, and it was then removed.

Issue

Whether plaintiff's evidence raised an inference of negligence under res ipsa loquitur against Eiskamp, the surgical nurse, and the hospital, and if so, whether that inference was dispelled as a matter of law on plaintiff's case so that nonsuit was proper. Also, whether testimony elicited from adverse witnesses under Code of Civil Procedure section 2055 may be used to dispel such an inference.

Rule

When a foreign object is unintentionally left in a patient's body, it ordinarily results from someone's negligence, and where an unconscious patient suffers unusual injury, all persons who had any control over the patient's body or the instrumentalities that might have caused the injury may be called upon to explain their conduct under res ipsa loquitur. An inference is dispelled as a matter of law when evidence of the nonexistence of the inferred fact is clear, positive, uncontradicted, and of such a nature that it cannot rationally be disbelieved. Testimony elicited under Code of Civil Procedure section 2055 is evidence in the case and may be used to dispel an inference, though not a presumption, if it meets that standard.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

At a surgical center in Sacramento, Nina Patel underwent abdominal surgery while fully anesthetized. Four months later, imaging revealed a metal retractor left inside her abdomen from the operation.

If Nina sues the operating surgeon, the scrub nurse, and the surgical center, which is the strongest argument that her evidence is sufficient to invoke res ipsa loquitur against all three at the close of her case?

Explanation. The majority rule is that when a foreign object is unintentionally left in a patient's body, it ordinarily results from someone's negligence. In an unconscious-patient case, all persons who had any control over the patient's body or the instrumentalities that might have caused the injury may be called upon to explain their conduct. Thus Nina need not identify the exact actor at the outset. (Derived from Leonard v. Watsonville Community Hospital (n.d.).)