Articles Posted in Illinois Civil Procedure

by

The Illinois Supreme Court has decided an appeal as to whether or not res judicata in a refiled medical-malpractice complaint barred its refiling. In the underlying case, Brandon and Daphne Wilson claimed that Edward Hospital in Naperville, Ill., was liable for the negligence of doctors under the theory of actual and apparent agency.

The hospital was granted a summary judgment order on the actual-agent allegations and the Wilsons voluntarily dismissed their complaint, but refiled it within one year. Edward Hospital then moved to dismiss the case based on res judicata, which essentially means that the issue has already been finally adjudicated by the court.

Under the Supreme Court decision in Hudson v. City of Chicago, 228 Ill.2d 468 (2008) and Rein v. David A. Noyes & Co., 172 Ill.2d 325 (1996), res judicata bars a refiled lawsuit when:

Continue reading

by

Sue Carter brought Joyce Gott to the Odin Nursing Home in 2005. Carter signed an arbitration agreement as Gott’s “legal representative.” Gott also signed an arbitration agreement with Odin after she was admitted to the nursing home facility.

Carter’s lawsuit filed against Odin claimed that the nursing home’s negligence caused Gott to die from gastrointestinal bleeding, anemia and respiratory failure.

Count I of Carter’s complaint was brought for Gott’s personal-injury claim preserved by the Illinois Survival Act. Count II of the complaint was for Gott’s heirs under the Illinois Wrongful Death Act.

Continue reading

by

Privilege is a legal term that infers an exception from a particular rule or requirement. For example, attorney-client privilege refers to the fact that attorneys are not required to disclose information gained from communication with their clients. However, the concept of privilege is not limited to the law alone. Doctor-patient privilege protects information gained during the course of medical treatment from being used in court without the patient’s permission.

The purpose of these forms of privilege is to encourage people to be candid with their lawyers and doctors in order to help those professionals perform their jobs. The idea is that if a person fears legal ramifications as a result of their communications with their attorneys and physicians, that he would be less candid and potentially withhold important information. In this way privilege is meant to protect clients and patients.

However, there are times when these forms of privileged can be waived, allowing other parties access to this formerly confidential information. For example, an Illinois judge recently reviewed the circumstances under which doctor-patient privilege is waived; Flowers v. Owens, No. 09 C 2716. In examining the case facts, the judge needed to ensure that the plaintiff-patient’s rights were protected, while also considering whether maintaining the privilege put the defense at an unfair advantage.

Continue reading

by

There’s an old saying that there are two sides to every story – in civil litigation, the plaintiff’s attorney present one side of the story to the jury while the defendant’s attorney presents the other. In order to ensure that the facts are fair and that neither party presents information to the jury that would unfairly prejudice it towards the other side, the trial judge rules on motions in limine prior to the trial.

Each side prepares its own motions in limine, which set out various evidence and testimony that it feels should be excluded from the trial. Each motion includes not only a recitation of which evidence the party seeks to exclude, but also an argument as to why that specific evidence should be excluded from the civil trial. The judge then makes the final ruling on each motion in limine. If the judge rules to exclude the evidence, then neither side may bring it up during trial. However, if the judge denies a motion in limine, then that evidence is free game.

The Illinois attorneys involved in Guski v. Raja, No. 1-10-0108 (May 10, 2011), went through this motion in limine process prior to the Illinois medical malpractice trial. The judge granted some motions, but denied others, including one of plaintiff’s motions regarding the decedent’s marijuana use. After the jury found in favor of the defendant doctor, the plaintiff sought a retrial based on the the trial court’s erroneous motion in limine rulings and the defense’s unfair closing argument.

Continue reading

by

An Illinois obstetrician appealed a $500,500 medical malpractice verdict against him in Lisa Babikian v. Richard Mruz, No. 1-10-2579. Dr. Mruz argued that the plaintiff’s attorney had prejudiced the Cook County jury against him. The appellate court disagreed and dismissed the defendant’s mistrial claims. However, the appellate court did grant the defense attorney’s request for a set-off, reducing the jury verdict by the amount of a prior settlement involving the same case.

The Babikian medical malpractice lawsuit arose out of preventable surgical errors Dr. Mruz committed while performing a diagnostic laparoscopy on Ms. Babikian. The purpose of the procedure was to determine whether or not Ms. Babikian suffered from endometriosis, a condition involving the cells lining the uterus. During the relatively simple surgical procedure, Dr. Mruz managed to pierce Ms. Babikian’s transverse colon.

This surgical mistake required Ms. Babikian to undergo corrective surgery, extensive hospitalization, and the placement and eventual reversal of a colostomy. In addition, the plaintiff developed abdominal pain, intestinal problems, and hernias as a result of the surgical negligence. The plaintiff and her now ex-husband brought an Illinois medical malpractice lawsuit against Dr. Mruz and the medical center where the surgery was performed.

Continue reading

by

The Illinois Supreme Court ruled as to the statute of limitations regarding the Illinois lawsuit of Kristen Kaufmann v. Roger A. Schroeder, M.D., Jersey Community Hospital, a municipal corporation, et al., No. 109738. While the plaintiff argued that she had filed her claim well within the two year statute, the Illinois Supreme Court held that she had failed to meet the actual one year statute of limitations. The deciding factor of whether or not it was a one or two year statute dealt with whether or not Kaufmann’s claim was considered an Illinois medical malpractice lawsuit.

The facts surrounding Kaufmann involved allegations that the plaintiff woke up after being sedated to find her physician licking her breasts. The complaint also contended that not only had her OB-GYN, Dr. Roger Schroeder, committed sexual assault against Kaufmann, but that he had unnecessarily sedated her in order to do so.

Kaufmann had presented to Jersey Community Hospital under Dr. Schroeder’s care for treatment of an urinary tract infection and was told that she needed to be sedated for the procedure; she later discovered that this was not true. As a result of Dr. Schroeder’s actions, Kaufmann filed a complaint not only against the doctor, but also against Jersey Community Hospital, the hospital employing him.

Continue reading

by

A recent Illinois Supreme Court decision changed the way damages can be sought under the Illinois Nursing Home Care Act. The Court ruled unanimously in a 6-0 ruling that punitive damages cannot be awarded for wrongful death cases under the Nursing Home Care Act in Thomas Vincent v. Alden-Park Strathmoor, Inc., No. 110406.

Punitive damages are different than compensatory damages, which are awarded by courts and juries as payment for actual harm or losses suffered as a result of the defendant’s actions. While compensatory damages are seen almost as a way to reimburse the plaintiff for their loss, punitive damages are meant as a way to punish a defendant for its actions. Punitive damages are typically awarded in addition to compensatory damages and are only awarded when the defendant’s actions are so grossly negligent that additional censure is needed.

In the underlying Chicago nursing home malpractice case, Thomas Vincent, the legal representative for his deceased mother’s estate, filed a complaint that contained three counts requesting damages be paid by Alden-Park Strathmoor, Inc. for its negligent care and treatment of his mother prior to her death. While two of the counts sought compensatory damages, the third and final count was a survival claim filed under the Nursing Home Care Act which included a request for punitive damages for the nursing home’s allegedly willful and wanton conduct.

Continue reading

by

The Illinois Appellate Court has found that a medical expert in a medical malpractice case may be impeached with the use of the physician’s §2-622 (Illinois Code of Civil Procedure) report as a prior inconsistent statement. This issue before the court was one of first impression in the state and was decided upon in Iaccino v. Anderson, No. 1-07-0207.
In the Iaccino birth injury lawsuit, the plaintiff’s attorneys alleged that the defendant doctors and hospital were responsible for the brain damage that the minor plaintiff, Jonathan Iaccino, suffered as a result of oxygen deprivation during his birth. The plaintiff’s attorneys alleged that the defendants’ medical negligent occurred as a result of their failure to monitor Jonathan’s fetal heart rate and their lack of response to the hyperstimulation of the uterus during his labor and delivery.

Gary Blake, M.D. provided a Illinois Code of Civil Procedure §2-622 affidavit as one of the plaintiff’s medical experts in Iaccino. When Dr. Blake signed the §2-622 report he stated that the decelerations recorded on a fetal-monitor strip were “variable decelerations.” However, at the trial, Dr. Blake testified that these strips showed “late decelerations” or “variable decelerations with a late component.”

Continue reading

by

The Illinois Appellate Court affirmed a trial court decision to treat a defendant doctor’s response to a plaintiff’s request to admit facts as evidentiary evidence rather than a judicial admission. The legal ruling arose out of an Illinois medical malpractice lawsuit involving complications following a surgeon’s attempt to reverse a tubal ligation surgery, Migdalia Serrano v. Carlos A. Rotman, M.D., No. 1-09-2028.
In her surgical malpractice lawsuit, the plaintiff, Migdalia Serrano, alleged that the defendant doctor, Carlos Rotman, M.D., negligently chose not to administer Factor IX, a coagulation factor, before and after her tubal ligation surgery. The plaintiff’s lawsuit alleged that the failure to administer the coagulation factor resulted in an infected hematoma. The Cook County jury trial resulted in a verdict in favor of the defendant surgeon, which the plaintiff then appealed.

At the center of the plaintiff’s appeal was that Dr. Rotman had been aware that Serrano was a hemophilia carrier, which would have made her more susceptible to developing a hematoma. Serrano alleged that Rotman chose not to administer Factor IX despite knowing about her heightened risk for infection. Moreover, the plaintiff alleged that as a result of the surgical malpractice, she suffered from additional medical complications that would not have occurred had she been given the Factor IX prior to her surgery.

Continue reading

by

An Illinois Appellate Court reviewed an Illinois medical malpractice case to determine whether references to the defendant doctors’ military service had prejudiced the jury against the plaintiff and contributed to its not guilty verdict. After reviewing the facts of the case, the court held that the comments had not prejudiced the jury and were “harmless”. Pavnica v. Edwin Veguilla, et al., No. 3-09-0065.

The plaintiff’s medical malpractice complaint alleged that Dr. Veguilla, an emergency room physician, had failed to prescribe anaerobic antibiotics when the plaintiff presented to the ER with an injured toe. The plaintiff’s medical history was complicated by a long history of diabetes and immunosuppressive medications he was taking after receiving a kidney and pancreas transplant. All diabetic patients realize the importance of checking your feet on a regular basis for potential cuts and injury as diabetic patients can easily develop diseases in their feet that could lead to gangrene.

Continue reading