Bailey v. Mercy Hospital and Medical Center, 186 N.E.3d 366

Jill Milton-Hampton presented to Mercy Hospital ED Mar. 16–17, 2012 with abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, tachycardia, and low hemoglobin; she was treated but declined recommended admission on Mar. 17.
She returned that evening; CT reported a "heterogeneous density" in the vaginal area; she was placed in observation with improving vitals and later went into cardiopulmonary arrest and died on Mar. 18.
The Cook County medical examiner reported death from myocarditis resulting from sepsis with MRSA in blood cultures; a second autopsy reported a different cause.
Plaintiff (administrator) alleged defendants negligently failed to diagnose/treat sepsis/toxic shock from a retained tampon and failed to warn Jill of risks before discharge, seeking wrongful-death/medical-malpractice damages.
A jury returned verdicts for defendants; the appellate court reversed in part, concluding the trial court erred by refusing (1) a nonpattern loss-of-chance instruction and (2) a pattern informed-consent instruction, and remanded for a new trial as to several defendants.
The Illinois Supreme Court reversed the appellate court on those instruction issues and affirmed the circuit-court judgment in full.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court abused discretion by refusing plaintiff's nonpattern "loss of chance" instruction when IPI Civil No. 15.01 (proximate cause) was given	Bailey: IPI 15.01 is inadequate; jury needed a specific loss-of-chance instruction explaining that negligence that lessened chance of survival may be proximate cause	Defs: Under Holton lost-chance is part of proximate-cause analysis; IPI 15.01 properly covers it and a separate nonpattern instruction is unnecessary	Court: No abuse; loss-of-chance harmonizes with proximate cause and is encompassed by IPI 15.01 (Holton, Sinclair)
Whether trial court erred by refusing plaintiff's IPI-based informed-consent instruction and giving a one-line issues instruction instead	Bailey: Trial court must give applicable IPI informed-consent instruction; one-line issue statement was legally insufficient	Defs: Informed-consent framework requires proof that patient consented to treatment without disclosure and was injured by that treatment; plaintiff alleged failure to perform/treat and failure to warn before discharge—not lack of informed consent	Court: No abuse; plaintiff did not plead or prove essential elements of informed-consent claim, so full IPI instruction was not required; one-line issue instruction adequately framed the allegation

Holton v. Memorial Hosp., 176 Ill. 2d 95 (Ill. 1997) (recognized loss-of-chance and held it comports with traditional proximate-cause principles)
Borowski v. Von Solbrig, 60 Ill. 2d 418 (Ill. 1975) (articulated the "more probably than not" proximate-cause standard referenced in Holton)
Sinclair v. Berlin, 325 Ill. App. 3d 458 (Ill. App. Ct. 2001) (refused requirement of a separate loss-of-chance instruction when IPI proximate-cause instruction given)
Cetera v. DiFilippo, 404 Ill. App. 3d 20 (Ill. App. Ct. 2010) (same; IPI 15.01 adequately states law in lost-chance malpractice cases)
Heastie v. Roberts, 226 Ill. 2d 515 (Ill. 2007) (trial-court instruction decisions reviewed for abuse of discretion; reversal requires prejudice)
Studt v. Sherman Health Sys., 2011 IL 108182 (Ill. 2011) (standard of review for instruction legal accuracy and abuse of discretion)
Dillon v. Evanston Hosp., 199 Ill. 2d 483 (Ill. 2002) (parties entitled to instructions on applicable legal principles and issues presented)
Schultz v. N.E. Ill. Reg'l Commuter R.R. Corp., 201 Ill. 2d 260 (Ill. 2002) (trial court must use applicable IPI when available)
Davis v. Kraff, 405 Ill. App. 3d 20 (Ill. App. Ct. 2010) (sets out four elements of an informed-consent malpractice claim)
Coryell v. Smith, 274 Ill. App. 3d 543 (Ill. App. Ct. 1995) (source for informed-consent elements cited in Davis)