or medical malpractice is not determinative of whether expert testimony is required."). 4 . Res ipsa loquitur represents "a separate ... exception to the general requirement for expert testimony in medical malpractice cases." Bowman v. Kalm, 2008 UT 9, ¶ 9 n. 3, 179 P.3d 754. In the medical malpractice arena, res ipsa loqui-tur cases typically involve injuries suffered by patients during surgery. See, eg., Baczuk v. Salt Lake Reg'l Med. Ctr., 2000 UT App 225, ¶ 2, 8 P.3d 1037 (patient emerged from hand surgery with pressure injury or burn on his buttocks); Dalley v. Utah Valley Reg'l Med. Ctr., 791 P.2d 193, 194 (Utah 1990) (patient with a healthy leg underwent caesarean section operation and emerged with a burn on her leg); Nixdorf v. Hicken, 612 P.2d 348, 351, 354 & n. 17 (Utah 1980) (<HOLDING>); Pete v. Youngblood, 2006 UT App 303, ¶ 3, 141
holding expert testimony is ordinarily required in legal malpractice cases to establish the standard of care 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 expert testimony provided no evidence as to causation since testimony was not based upon reasonable medical probability holding expert testimony not required to defeat summary judgment in medical malpractice suit because defendant doctors admissions were sufficient to establish the standard of care holding expert testimony is generally required to establish proximate cause in medical malpractice cases