render an intelligent decision as to whether his conduct fell below the standard of care for anesthesiologists. On the other hand, Quinn argues that negligence may be in ferred because Dr. Syfu has never injured the eye of any of his previous 2,000 patients. Our courts have held that expert testimony is not required when the fact-finder can understand that the physician’s conduct fell below the applicable standard of care without technical input from an expert witness. See Whyde v. Czarkowski, 659 N.E.2d 625, 628 (Ind.Ct.App.1995), trans. denied. Such actions have typically arisen from physicians leaving a foreign object in the patient’s body; juries can understand without independent explanation that the object should have been removed. See Burke v. Capello, 520 N.E.2d 439 (Ind.1988) (<HOLDING>), overruled on other grounds by, Vergara by
holding that a request for funds for expert testimony must show inter alia that the testimony is crucial and is subject to varying expert opinions 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 by an orthopedic surgeon in a case of alleged medical malpractice by a podiatrist failed to create a genuine issue of material fact because 1 the material question in the case was the standard required of podiatrists not orthopedic surgeons 2 the witness admitted he was not familiar with the procedure the defendant performed and 3 when the orthopedic surgeon was asked if he held himself out as an expert he answered no not in podiatry no holding that expert testimony is unnecessary when orthopedic surgeon failed to remove two pieces of cement totaling oneinch in diameter after affixing prosthesis for hip replacement holding that expert testimony is unnecessary where the case is not a case in which lay jurors would be unable to grasp the issues without expert assistance