Gobeil, Judge. During a prolonged surgical procedure, Fritz F. Swint suffered an injury that left him with nerve damage and limited use of his right hand. Swint and his wife Melissa thereafter filed suit in DeKalb County State Court against Paul Alphonse, Jr., M.D. (the surgeon), Tonya Mae, M.D. (the anesthesiologist), Pamela Roy, R. N. (the surgical nurse), and Midtown Urology, P.C. (Alphonse’s employer), seeking damages arising from the defendants’ alleged medical malpractice. The Swints now appeal from an order granting summary judgment in favor of Dr. Alphonse and Midtown Urology (collectively “Dr. Alphonse”) on the Swints’ claims.[1] The Swints assert that in granting summary judgment, the trial court erred in its factual conclusion about the applicable standard of care and in finding that the Swints lacked sufficient evidence to create a question of fact on the causation element of their malpractice claims. We agree with the Swints, and we therefore reverse the trial court’s order.Summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. OCGA § 91156 (c). “In reviewing a grant or denial of summary judgment, we owe no deference to the trial court’s ruling and we review de novo both the evidence and the trial court’s legal conclusions. Moreover, we construe the evidence and all inferences and conclusions arising therefrom most favorably toward the party opposing the motion.” Bryant v. Optima Int’l, 339 Ga. App. 696, 696 (792 SE2d 489) (2016) (citations and punctuation omitted). In doing so, we bear in mind that “[t]he party opposing summary judgment is not required to produce evidence demanding judgment for it, but is only required to present evidence that raises a genuine issue of material fact.” Johnson v. Omondi, 294 Ga. 74, 75 (751 SE2d 288) (2013) (citation and punctuation omitted). The underlying facts in this case are largely undisputed and are set forth in Swint I as follows: [O]n December 3, 2009, Mr. Swint underwent a surgical procedure known as a roboticassisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (“RALP”) performed by Dr. Alphonse and proctored by Dr. Raymond Pak (“Dr. Pak”).[[2]] Dr. Mae, M.D. was the attending anesthesiologist and Nurse Roy was the circulating nurse during the surgery. The RALP procedure required Mr. Swint to be positioned in the lithotomy in a steep Trendelenburg[[3]] position, with his left and right arms tucked to his side. Dr. Alphonse and Dr. Pak positioned Mr. Swint’s body using Dr. Pak’s method of wrapping the patient’s body with sheets and towel clips, without the assistance of Dr. Mae and Nurse Roy. Once Mr. Swint was positioned by Drs. Alphonse and Pak, Dr. Mae tilted the operating table into the steep Trendelenburg position to the level approved by the surgeons. The surgery, conducted by Dr. Alphonse, lasted approximately 9 hours and 21 minutes. At no time during the surgery did Defendants . . . reposition Mr. Swint’s body[, nor did they discuss doing so]. Mr. Swint’s body remained in the same position throughout the entire procedure.
After surgery, Defendants took Mr. Swint to a postsurgery recovery room where he complained of pain in both shoulders and arms. Mr. Swint was diagnosed with compartment syndrome[[4]] in his right arm the following day, and underwent surgery to relieve the pressure [causing the condition]. Following surgery, Mr. Swint did not regain complete use of his right arm and hand.
