## Facts

- Velma Boyd was hospitalized for a right-side pneumothorax, and Dr. Anup K. Chakraborty inserted a pneumothorax catheter into her chest to re-inflate the lung.
- During later right-lung surgery performed by Dr. Giles S. Hedderich, the pneumothorax catheter was removed and a larger drainage catheter was placed and later removed.
- Months later, Boyd experienced stabbing chest pain; imaging showed a catheter fragment in her lung, and she underwent surgery to remove it.
- Boyd sued the physicians for professional negligence, alleging failure to inspect the catheter upon removal and failure to remove a catheter fragment left in her body.
- The physicians moved for summary judgment and submitted affidavits stating they complied with the applicable medical standard of care.
- Boyd produced no expert testimony, asserting the retained catheter fragment and alleged failure to inspect permitted a lay inference of negligence.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the physicians based on the absence of expert testimony.

## Issues

1. Whether, after physicians present affidavits asserting compliance with the standard of care, a malpractice plaintiff must produce expert testimony to avoid summary judgment.
2. Whether alleged negligence involving failure to inspect a removed catheter and leaving a catheter fragment in a patient falls within the common-knowledge exception to the expert-testimony requirement.

## Decision

- The Nebraska Supreme Court reversed the summary judgment and remanded.
- The physicians’ affidavits made a prima facie showing of no negligence for summary-judgment purposes, shifting the burden to Boyd.
- Expert testimony was not required because the alleged negligence—failing to ensure a catheter was intact upon removal and leaving a fragment in the patient—was within the comprehension of lay jurors.
- Viewing the record in the light most favorable to Boyd, a factfinder could reasonably infer negligence from the circumstances surrounding the retained catheter fragment.

## Legal Principles

- Summary judgment is proper only when no genuine issue of material fact exists and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; evidence is viewed with reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmovant.
- In medical malpractice actions, standard of care and breach ordinarily must be established by expert testimony.
- Expert testimony is unnecessary when the alleged negligence is understandable by laypersons without medical expertise (common-knowledge exception).
- A defendant physician’s affidavit stating no breach of the applicable standard of care establishes a prima facie case of lack of negligence for summary-judgment purposes, shifting the burden to the plaintiff to show a triable issue.

## Conclusion

The court held that a retained catheter fragment coupled with an alleged failure to inspect the catheter upon removal could be evaluated by lay jurors without expert testimony, making summary judgment improper and requiring further proceedings.


Boyd v. Chakraborty, 550 N.W.2d 44 (Neb. 1996)