what a reasonable person in Morgan’s position would have done in these circumstances. ¶ 33. This case is certainly distinguishable from cases this court and the Mississippi Supreme Court have found to fall ■within medical-malpractice statutes and require expert testimony. In Chitty, the plaintiffs claim arose out of what she alleged was an unnecessary biopsy and a fraudulent diagnosis of cancer. Chitty, 16 So.3d at 775-76 (¶ 4). So the rendering of a profession medical services itself was the source of the alleged injury. Id. at 779 (¶ 13). And expert testimony was required to determine whether a reasonable dermatologist would have performed a biopsy. Id. Here, Crosthwait was not undergoing a medical procedure. Cf. Kastler v. Iowa Methodist Hosp., 193 N.W.2d 98, 101-02 (Iowa 1971) (<HOLDING>). ¶ 34. Howell involved a patient’s fall.
holding that a hospitals giving showers to its patients is not a professional activity holding courts have held that hospitals have a duty to protect its patients from the tortious or criminal actions of third parties due to the special relationship between the hospital and the patient holding that a hospitals bylaws are an integral part of its contractual relationship with the members of its medical staff holding that doctors do not have to accept patients holding that upon admission to a hospital the hospitals lien attached to the proceeds of all insurance claims accruing to the patient or his legal representative as a result of the patients hospitalization