Dr. Syfu maintains that a jury does not possess the independent knowledge and expertise necessary ra v. Doan, 593 N.E.2d 185 (Ind.1992); Ciesiolka v. Selby, 147 Ind.App. 396, 261 N.E.2d 95 (1970) (finding that jury did not need expert testimony to conclude that doctor negligently left mesh in patient’s abdomen); Other types of medical malpractice actions have also been sent to the jury without the aid of expert testimony. In Gold v. Ishak, 720 N.E.2d 1175 (Ind.Ct.App.1999), trans. denied, for example, this court concluded that expert testimony is not required because a fire occurring during surgery where an instrument that emits a spark is used near a source of oxygen is not beyond the realm of the lay person to understand. See also Stumph v. Foster, 524 N.E.2d 812 (Ind.Ct.App.1988) (<HOLDING>). Here, the record reveals that an
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 jury should decide whether plaintiffs testimony proved reasonable and necessary medical expenses holding that the jury did not need expert testimony to decide a chiropractor negligently broke his patients rib during treatment for migraine headaches holding that a patient who broke his leg in a fall while going from his hospital bed to the bathroom was not required to present expert testimony regarding the standard of care holding that jurors do not need expert testimony on matters of common knowledge