Can patients prove medical malpractice without expert testimony for burns from heating pads? Baczuk v. Salt Lake Regional Medical Center Explained

In medical malpractice cases, plaintiffs typically must provide expert testimony to establish the standard of care and prove negligence. However, the Utah Court of Appeals in Baczuk v. Salt Lake Regional Medical Center clarified an important exception to this rule when injuries are obvious enough for laypeople to understand.

Background and Facts

Robert Baczuk underwent surgery to reattach fingers severed in a snowblower accident. During the procedure, Dr. Moench used a heating pad to prevent vasoconstriction. Following surgery, Baczuk discovered burns and pressure injuries to his buttocks and nerve damage to his right leg. He sued both the doctor and hospital for negligence. Defendants moved for summary judgment, supporting their motion with expert affidavits stating that neither party violated the standard of care and that such injuries were “rare but known risks” that could occur despite appropriate care. Rather than providing counter-expert testimony, Baczuk opposed summary judgment by invoking res ipsa loquitur.

Key Legal Issues

The central issue was whether a plaintiff may rely on res ipsa loquitur to resist summary judgment when defendants provide unrebutted expert opinion that injuries could occur without negligence. Specifically, the court examined whether burns from a heating pad during surgery fall within lay understanding sufficient to infer negligence without expert testimony.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals reversed the summary judgment, holding that res ipsa loquitur applied. The court distinguished this case from others requiring expert testimony, noting that “it requires no medical or technical expertise to understand that a person may suffer a burn and/or a pressure injury from lying in the same position for too long on a heating pad.” The court emphasized that defendants’ expert affidavits were not “conclusively exculpatory” because they offered only conclusory opinions that appropriate care was taken, without explaining specific non-negligent causes for the injuries.

Practice Implications

This decision reinforces that res ipsa loquitur remains viable in medical malpractice cases involving obvious injuries from familiar equipment. Defense counsel should provide detailed expert testimony explaining specific non-negligent causes rather than conclusory statements. Plaintiff attorneys can leverage this precedent when injuries involve common-sense scenarios that laypeople can understand without medical expertise.