In a medical malpractice case, is a plaintiff required to have a myelogram to determine the cause of a fistula?

In Siverson v. Weber, 57 Cal.2d 834, 22 Cal.Rptr. 337, 372 P.2d 97, plaintiff suffered a fistula after a hysterectomy. The medical testimony was to the effect doctors could not ordinarily determine the cause of a fistula, nor could they in that case. It may occur though proper care is used. The development of a fistula is rare, although an inherent risk of the operation. Numerous possible causes were given, but the court states there was nothing to indicate if it was caused by any of the causes, or a combination of them, or that it was the result of negligence. The court said, 'Since it [1 Cal.App.3d 803] cannot be said that the development of the fistula was more probably than not the result of negligence of the defendants, the trial court correctly concluded that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was not applicable.' Siverson v. Weber, Supra, at 839, 22 Cal.Rptr. at 340, 372 P.2d at 100.

Defendants contend that there is no evidence that appellant's injuries were the proximate result of the administration of the myelogram. As to this, no medical testimony was required (Dean v. Dyer, 64 Cal.App.2d 646, 149 P.2d 288, and the question of proximate cause is for the jury in a malpractice case as in any other case. ³