Boyd v. Chakraborty

Velma Boyd (plaintiff) went to the hospital with a collapsed lung. Initially, Boyd was treated by Dr. Anup Chakraborty (defendant), who inserted a catheter into Boyd’s lung. Three days later, Dr. Giles S. Hedderich (defendant) operated on Boyd. At that time, the original catheter was removed, and a different catheter was inserted into Boyd’s side. This second catheter was later removed. Approximately three months later, Boyd was admitted to a different hospital with complaints about stabbing chest pains. X-rays showed that Boyd had a one-inch piece of tube in her right lung that had to be removed with additional surgery. Boyd sued Chakraborty and Hedderich for medical malpractice, alleging that one of them had negligently left part of a catheter tube inside her lung. Chakraborty and Hedderich moved for summary judgment, submitting sworn statements that they had each complied with the applicable standard of care for inserting and extracting catheter tubes and arguing that this meant they had not acted negligently. In opposition, Boyd submitted evidence that somehow a tube was left inside her lung, which she claimed was sufficient to create a question of fact as to whether at least one of the doctors had acted negligently. Boyd did not submit any expert-witness testimony. The trial court ruled that expert testimony was necessary to determine the appropriate standard of care for inserting and extracting catheter tubes and whether either doctor had negligently fractured a catheter tube inside Boyd. Because Boyd had not submitted any expert testimony to rebut the doctors’ claims on these issues, the trial court determined Boyd could not establish her claim and granted summary judgment to the doctors. Boyd appealed to the Nebraska Supreme Court.