The Illinois Supreme Court recently reviewed Illinois Pattern Jury Instruction (IPI), Civil No. 105.01 (2006), and concluded that it does not accurately state Illinois law. Studt v. Sherman Health Systems, Docket No. 108182 (June 16, 2011). There, plaintiff visited the Sherman Hospital emergency room with abdominal pain. The emergency room doctors failed to diagnose her pain as appendicitis and sent her home. Two days later, the plaintiff's general physician ordered a surgical consult, where it was discovered that plaintiff's appendix ruptured and became gangrene, requiring surgical removal. Thereafter, plaintiff underwent multiple hospitalizations and surgeries due to infections and peritonitis.
Plaintiff filed a medical malpractice lawsuit, alleging that the hospital was responsible and also vicariously liable (for the alleged professional negligence of its emergency room doctors). In Illinois, institutional negligence (hospital negligence) differs from professional negligence. Institutional negligence may be established via a wide array of evidence due to "the inherent diversity in hospital administration." Studt, citing Advicula v. United Blood Services, 176 Ill. 2d 1, 33 (1996). As a result, evidence in institutional negligence cases may include administrative rules, its own bylaws, regulations, and/or internal or external policies and procedures. In professional negligence cases, on the other hand, "plaintiff bears a burden to establish the standard of care through expert witness testimony." Studt, citing Advicula, 176 Ill. 2d at 24. Without expert testimony, courts have concluded that jurors would not have the knowledge necessary to judge the professional's conduct.
Ultimately, the Illinois Supreme Court found that IPI Civil No. 105.01 (2006) incorrectly stated Illinois law on professional negligence as to the evidence the jury may consider in determining whether the doctor complied with the standard of care. Further, it found that IPI Civil No. 105.01 (2006) also failed to accurately state Illinois law as to the standard of care applicable in professional negligence actions because it contained no reference to the professional's knowledge, skill, and care (or ability).
Pertinent to the Studt claim, the Illinois Supreme Court did not find reversal warranted because the Hospital was defending against a professional negligence claim and an institutional negligence claim, plaintiff presented evidence of the standard of care on both theories of recovery though expert testimony, and the jury was adequately educated as to the standard of care of emergency room doctors. However, the Court recognized that had the case been different, serious prejudice could have occurred.
Going forward, jury instructions in this area must be tailored by the trial attorney or the judge presiding over the trial to comply with the Studt case. Many judges in Cook County already have their own version of IPI Civil 105.01 available. Now that the Supreme Court has addressed the issue, victims of a doctor's or hospital's negligence will benefit from this clearer statement of the law.
Continue reading "
ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT ADDRESSES TYPE OF EVIDENCE, STANDARD OF CARE IN PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE CASES
" »