John Adams M.D. v. Mark Sietsema

While I otherwise concur with the majority, I respectfully dissent as to its holding concerning Dr. Adams. The riiajority insists that Appellee’s claim against Dr. Adams required an expert witness to survive a motion for summary judgment. I disagree. We have accepted two circumstances under which expert testimony is unnecessary.-in medical cases such as this, pursuant to,the doctrine of res ipsa loqui-tur. The first is “where the common knowledge or experience of laymen is extensive enough to recognize or to infer negligence from the facts.” Jarboe v. Harting, 397 S.W.2d 776, 778 (Ky. 1965).…