With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 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

A: holding expert testimony provided no evidence as to causation since testimony was not based upon reasonable medical probability
B: 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
C: 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
D: holding expert testimony is ordinarily required in legal malpractice cases to establish the standard of care
C.