Actually IMHO it's much more involved than that - hence the Appeal
It appears that the cell saver tube fell to the ground, while the cell-saver's named operative had LEFT the operating room - and it was during this time that significant blood-loss started.
That named operative believed that the cell-saver machine could only be used if "that before the first incision there must be a continuous, closed circuit from the cell saver’s suction input, through the cell saver, and back to the patient."
There was evidence presented that Jehovah’s Witness beliefs do not require the suction input to be continuously in contact with the patient.
Also it seems that they say that, for this operation, the cell-saver should have been on stand-by and brought into use only when and if needed. Instead they got it working before it was needed, and this would have helped avoid the above issue.
Baumgartner argues that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Dr. Morehart on her medical malpractice claims. She claims that Dr. Morehart was negligent in (1) failing to direct the surgical team to set up the cell saver machine on standby, and (2) failing to direct Hendrix to continue using the cell saver machine during surgery after replacing the contaminated suction tube. We hold that Baumgartner presented sufficient evidence to create genuine issues of material fact regarding these claims.
