care provider failed to supply adequate information to obtain the informed consent of the injured person, the plaintiff shall have the burden of proving that the treatment, procedure, or surgery was performed in other than an emergency situation and that the medical care provider did not supply the type of information regarding the treatment, procedure, or surgery as would customarily have been given to a patient in the position of the injured person or other persons authorized to give consent for such a patient by other medical care providers with similar training and experience at the time of the treatment, procedure, or surgery in the locality in which the medical care provider practices or in a similar locality.”); Fuller v. Starnes, 268 Ark. 476, 597 S.W.2d 88, 89-90 (1980) (<HOLDING>). The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R.
holding expert testimony is generally required to establish proximate cause in medical malpractice cases holding expert testimony was not required where jury is capable of determining existence of duty holding expert testimony is always required for medical negligence cases involving informed consent because physicians duty of disclosure is measured by customary disclosures in practicing community holding that expert medical testimony was not necessary to establish negligence where surgeon left a needle in the patients body but stating that proof of proximate cause requires some expert testimony in medical malpractice cases holding that no expert reports specifically addressing conduct of professional corporation and professional association were required when plaintiffs alleged only vicarious liability based on medical negligence of entities physicians explaining that the entities conduct is not measured by a medical standard of care but rather their liability was solely vicarious