Holt v. Richardson

BELSOME, J., concurs. |,I respectfully concur in the result but write separately to note that the ruling with regard to the unusual set of facts in this ease does not in any way alter Pfiffner and its progeny, which continue to stand for the proposition that objects left in the body generally do not require expert testimony. Within the limited context of the circumstances in this case, however, the trial judge did not abuse her discretion in granting the motion for summary judgment.