How is this? Analysis The Anderson v. Somberg case serves as a precedent indicating that the presence of a foreign object in a patient's body after surgery can be used as evidence of negligence. In Shana's case, the discovery of a metal screw in her shoulder after surgery is a similar incident. If we apply the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, the burden of proof would shift to the defendant (the doctor), who will then need to provide evidence demonstrating that there was no negligence during the surgical procedure. Schmidt v. Gibbs is another case we apply the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, the burden of proof would shift to the defendant (the doctor), who will then need to provide evidence demonstrating that there was no negligence during the surgical procedure. After reviewing Shana's case, the criteria for applying the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur are met. The presence of a metal screw in Shana's shoulder after surgery is not something that would normally happen without negligence. This deviates from the expected standard of care in a surgical procedure. The screw is a foreign object that should not have been left inside her body after the surgery. The surgical instruments, including the screw, were under the exclusive control of the doctor who performed the surgery. This is a key element in res ipsa loquitur cases, as it helps establish the defendant's responsibility for the injury. There is no indication from the facts that Shana contributed to the injury. She followed t