Arkebauer v. Springfield Clinic
189 N.E.3d 510
Ill. App. Ct.2021Background
- In June 2010 Rebecca Arkebauer underwent a colonoscopy by Dr. Peter Karras and thereafter developed progressive pain; by July 3 she was found to have a ruptured spleen and underwent emergency splenectomy.
- Arkebauer sued Karras and Springfield Clinic (2012; amended complaint alleged negligence, res ipsa loquitur, and respondeat superior), alleging excessive force during colonoscopy and failure to warn of splenic-injury risk and to advise avoidance of blood thinners.
- Defendants’ answer admitted they did not advise Arkebauer about the possibility of splenic injury (a judicial admission) but denied negligence and did not plead contributory negligence or failure-to-mitigate affirmative defenses.
- Pretrial, Arkebauer moved in limine to exclude evidence or argument that her conduct (use of aspirin, failure to follow instructions, delay in reporting symptoms) caused or contributed to her injury; the court ultimately allowed defendants to pursue a "sole proximate cause" theory after reviewing depositions but later refused the sole-proximate-cause jury instruction based on the trial record.
- At trial both sides presented medical testimony about cause and risk; Arkebauer herself introduced testimony regarding aspirin use and post‑procedure care; the jury returned verdict for defendants; Arkebauer appealed alleging erroneous admission of plaintiff‑fault evidence, denial of mistrial, and improper closing argument contradicting the judicial admission.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court erred in denying motions in limine excluding evidence that Arkebauer caused or worsened her injury or failed to mitigate | Arkebauer: Such evidence bears on affirmative defenses (contributory/comparative negligence, failure to mitigate) that defendants never pleaded and thus was inadmissible; evidence was highly prejudicial | Defendants: A sole proximate‑cause defense need not be pled as an affirmative defense; evidence was relevant to proximate cause and to rebut Arkebauer’s allegations about discharge/instructions and delay | Court: Arkebauer forfeited review — she failed to make contemporaneous objections, introduced much of the same evidence during her case, and relied on arguments different from those presented at trial; denial affirmed |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying a mistrial based on defendants’ presentation of plaintiff‑fault evidence | Arkebauer: Defendants put forward days of prejudicial evidence under the guise of sole proximate cause; a mistrial was warranted | Defendants: The record does not show substantial prejudicial evidence; curative instruction was given | Court: No abuse of discretion — the court gave a curative (strike/disregard) instruction, the record did not show defendants over‑blamed plaintiff, and Arkebauer failed to identify specific prejudicial testimony on appeal |
| Whether defendants’ closing argument contradicting their judicial admission (re: consent form/unforeseen conditions) warranted reversal | Arkebauer: Defense closing improperly implied informed consent or disclosure via the consent form, contradicting defendants’ admission that they did not inform her of splenic‑injury risk | Defendants: Arkebauer waived reliance on the judicial admission by eliciting testimony on the same issues during her case; closing was a permissible inference from the consent form and other evidence | Court: Arkebauer waived the admission by introducing controlling evidence; even if argument was improper, it was not prejudicial enough to require reversal |
Key Cases Cited
- Simmons v. Garces, 198 Ill. 2d 541 (Ill. 2002) (contemporaneous objection required to preserve challenge after denial of a motion in limine)
- Illinois State Toll Highway Authority v. Heritage Standard Bank & Trust Co., 163 Ill. 2d 498 (Ill. 1994) (denial of in limine relief does not preserve objection; must object when evidence is offered)
- Cunningham v. Millers Gen. Ins. Co., 227 Ill. App. 3d 201 (Ill. App. 1992) (discussed in opinion; court declines to follow its suggested exception to the contemporaneous‑objection rule)
- Woodward v. Mettille, 81 Ill. App. 3d 168 (Ill. App. 1980) (noting preservation where party pursued repeated in limine relief and fairness counseled against waiver)
- Lundberg v. Church Farm, Inc., 151 Ill. App. 3d 452 (Ill. App. 1986) (discussed as authority referenced in Cunningham regarding perceived conclusiveness of in limine rulings)
- McDonnell v. McPartlin, 192 Ill. 2d 505 (Ill. 2000) (trial court’s wide discretion to grant or deny mistrial; review for abuse of discretion)
- Knauerhaze v. Nelson, 361 Ill. App. 3d 538 (Ill. App. 2005) (judicial admissions are binding when clear and unequivocal)
- People ex rel. Reynolds v. Aldridge, 107 Ill. App. 3d 679 (Ill. App. 1982) (a party waives reliance on a judicial admission by introducing evidence on the admitted issue)