Allen v. Sarah Bush Lincoln Health Center
185 N.E.3d 815
Ill. App. Ct.2021Background
- In Sept. 2012 Mark Allen made multiple ER visits to Sarah Bush Lincoln Health Center for neck pain, fever, and neurological symptoms; ER physician Dr. Derek Stout ordered a CT (read by radiologist Dr. Lynn Dale), diagnosed a likely viral infection, and discharged Allen.
- Allen collapsed the next day and was transferred to Carle Hospital, where MRI revealed a spinal epidural abscess; he underwent surgery but sustained a spinal cord injury.
- Allen sued the hospital for medical malpractice alleging the hospital (through its agents and apparent agents) failed to timely diagnose and treat the abscess; at trial the jury awarded $14 million.
- At trial the hospital argued that the nonparty radiologist (Dale) was the sole proximate cause; plaintiff alleged Dale was the hospital’s apparent agent and the hospital was therefore liable.
- Key procedural rulings: the court denied a midtrial amendment to add a direct claim against Dale, admitted plaintiff’s non-emergency-medicine experts (an internist and an orthopedic spine surgeon) to testify about emergency-medicine standard of care, and gave a modified instruction (IPI-based) telling the jury that a finding of apparent agency for Dale would preclude the hospital’s sole-proximate-cause defense.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the jury instruction (No. 18) barring consideration of the hospital's sole‑proximate‑cause defense if the jury finds apparent agency was legally correct | Allen: instruction correctly reflects that apparent agents are treated like agents and thus the sole‑proximate‑cause defense is unavailable if apparent agency is found | Hospital: instruction misstated the law; a defendant may assert sole proximate cause even if the third party is an apparent (or actual) agent | Court: Instruction was correct (it tracked IPI 105.11 and the IPI 12.04 notes); two‑issue rule and lack of special interrogatory also preclude reversal |
| Admissibility of testimony by Drs. Kopin (internist) and Bernstein (orthopedic spine surgeon) on emergency‑medicine standard of care | Allen: experts had sufficient familiarity and experience to meet foundational requirements; their testimony would aid jurors | Hospital: experts lacked the required foundation to opine on emergency‑medicine standard of care because neither was an emergency‑medicine specialist | Court: Trial court did not abuse discretion; both experts satisfied the Sullivan/Jones foundational and competency standards |
| Whether plaintiff counsel’s conduct (press release, questioning, argument) deprived hospital of a fair trial warranting a new trial | Allen: counsel’s advocacy was within bounds or remedied by trial court rulings | Hospital: counsel repeatedly made prejudicial, improper remarks/questions and pressured/jurors, requiring mistrial/new trial | Court: Although some conduct was improper and at times flagrant, the hospital failed to seek timely, adequate relief at trial (no mistrial requested); objections and curative rulings largely addressed misconduct; no reversal warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell v. McPartlin, 192 Ill. 2d 505 (Ill. 2000) (describing the sole proximate cause or "empty chair" defense)
- Leonardi v. Loyola Univ. of Chicago, 168 Ill. 2d 83 (Ill. 1995) (plaintiff bears burden to prove proximate cause; sole proximate cause focuses jury on causation element)
- Gilbert v. Sycamore Mun. Hosp., 156 Ill. 2d 511 (Ill. 1993) (explaining apparent agency and when a principal is bound by the appearance of authority)
- Purtill v. Hess, 111 Ill. 2d 229 (Ill. 1986) (foundational requirements for medical‑expert testimony)
- Jones v. O'Young, 154 Ill. 2d 39 (Ill. 1992) (physician expert need not share defendant’s specialty but must meet foundational requirements)
- Sullivan v. Edward Hosp., 209 Ill. 2d 100 (Ill. 2004) (reaffirming Jones and outlining the two foundational requirements for medical experts)
- Strino v. Premier Healthcare Assocs., 365 Ill. App. 3d 895 (Ill. App. Ct. 2006) (discussing the two‑issue rule and preservation when multiple theories are submitted)
- Tabe v. Ausman, 388 Ill. App. 3d 398 (Ill. App. Ct. 2009) (illustrating need for special interrogatories when general verdict may rest on multiple inconsistent theories)
- Simmons v. Garces, 198 Ill. 2d 541 (Ill. 2002) (standards for special interrogatories to test a general verdict)
- Lovell v. Sarah Bush Lincoln Health Ctr., 397 Ill. App. 3d 890 (Ill. App. Ct. 2010) (closing‑argument impropriety review; presumption that trial court cures errors when objections are sustained)