Barnes v. Bovenmyer
122 N.W.2d 312, 255 Iowa 220, 1963 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 696 (1963)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a medical malpractice action, the plaintiff must produce expert medical testimony to establish that the physician's negligence was the proximate cause of the injury, unless the causal connection is so obvious as to be within the common knowledge of laypersons.
Facts:
- On Sunday, June 29, 1958, a small piece of steel pierced Leo V. Barnes's left eye.
- Barnes went to the Ottumwa hospital, where Dr. Emerson, a general practitioner, examined him and called Dr. Bovenmyer, an eye specialist.
- X-rays were taken which showed a foreign body in the eyeball, but Dr. Bovenmyer and Dr. Emerson did not see it at the time.
- Dr. Bovenmyer removed a different piece of steel from Barnes's lower eyelid and, according to Barnes, told him it was not necessary for him to return for follow-up care and that he could go to work the next evening.
- Barnes worked the following night and experienced almost unbearable pain in his eye.
- On Tuesday, July 1, Barnes returned to Dr. Bovenmyer, who, after a new examination and X-rays, discovered the steel inside the eyeball.
- Dr. Bovenmyer immediately sent Barnes to the State University Hospitals in Iowa City, where surgeons removed the piece of steel that same evening.
- Despite the removal, the eye was severely infected and had to be surgically removed 18 days later, on July 19.
Procedural Posture:
- Leo V. Barnes sued Dr. D. O. Bovenmyer in an Iowa state trial court for negligence resulting in the loss of his eye.
- At the close of the plaintiff's case, the defendant moved for a directed verdict.
- The trial court sustained the defendant's motion and entered judgment for Dr. Bovenmyer.
- Barnes, as the appellant, appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of Iowa.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
In a medical malpractice action, is expert testimony required to establish that a physician's negligent delay in diagnosis and treatment was the proximate cause of the patient's injury, when the causal connection is not within the common knowledge of laypersons?
Opinions:
Majority - Garfield, C. J.
Yes, expert testimony is required. In a medical malpractice case where the causal link between the alleged negligence and the injury is not obvious to a layperson, the plaintiff must provide expert testimony establishing that the defendant's actions were the probable cause of the harm. Although there was sufficient evidence for a jury to find Dr. Bovenmyer was negligent in his diagnosis and in failing to instruct Barnes to return for a follow-up examination, Barnes failed to present any expert testimony that this negligence—specifically the 36-to-48-hour delay in treatment—was the proximate cause of the loss of his eye. The only expert witness, Dr. Emerson, testified that the infection likely entered the eye at the moment of the initial injury and that an earlier removal of the steel probably would not have saved the eye. Without affirmative expert evidence establishing causation, the plaintiff's claim fails as a matter of law.
Analysis:
This case illustrates the critical distinction between the elements of breach of duty (negligence) and proximate cause in a malpractice claim. It solidifies the principle that even if a doctor clearly deviates from the standard of care, the plaintiff's case will fail without specific evidence linking that deviation to the resulting harm. The decision reinforces the requirement for expert testimony in complex medical cases to prevent juries from speculating about causation. This precedent makes it more difficult for plaintiffs to succeed in malpractice actions without securing favorable expert opinions on both the standard of care and the cause of the injury.
