Citibank, N.A. v. McGladery and Pullen, LLP
2011 IL App (1st) 102427
Ill. App. Ct.2011Background
- Citibank loaned $1.4 million to Subspecialty Centers of America (SCA) for a surgical practice; the borrower physician Weinberger absconded with funds.
- McGladrey & Pullen audited SCA for the year ended December 31, 2003 and issued an audit stating SCA’s balance sheet presented fairly under GAAS.
- Citibank sued McGladrey for negligent audit reliance in making the loan; trial court granted and denied motions in limine affecting expert testimony and damages evidence.
- Citibank disclosed three experts: Bartko (accounting), Kern (ENT), Naclerio (ENT); Bartko was retained to opine the audit deficient for not using health care specialists.
- McGladrey filed a motion in limine to strike Bartko’s testimony about the health care specialists’ opinions; the court limited Bartko to discuss the possible use of health care specialists but barred testimony about their specific opinions.
- The circuit court limited damages to the 2004 term loan; Citibank sought exclusion of evidence of other SCA loans, which the court denied; the jury returned a verdict for McGladrey.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bartko may testify to the health care specialists’ opinions | Bartko should testify to the team’s conclusions on medical fraud | Bartko cannot testify to others’ opinions beyond his own qualifications | Preclusion upheld; Bartko barred from testifying to specialists’ opinions |
| Whether evidence of Citibank’s contributory negligence related to other SCA loans was admissible | Such evidence is relevant to causation and reliance on the 2004 loan | Excluded as irrelevant to the specific loan issue | No abuse of discretion; evidence admissible for causation/reliance |
Key Cases Cited
- Walker v. Soo Line R.R. Co., 208 F.3d 581 (7th Cir. 2000) (team approach permits leaders to rely on other doctors’ opinions)
- Dura Automotive Systems of Indiana, Inc. v. CTS Corp., 285 F.3d 609 (7th Cir. 2002) (expert cannot be mouthpiece for another specialty; must avoid parroting)
- Congregation of the Passion, Holy Cross Province v. Touche Ross & Co., 224 Ill. App. 3d 559 (1991) (evidence exclusion appropriate when not bearing on the specific issues)
- Wilson v. Clark, 84 Ill.2d 186 (1981) (adoption of Fed. R. Evid. 703 in Illinois)
- Reichert v. Board of Fire & Police Commissioners, 388 Ill. App. 3d 834 (2009) (acknowledges Illinois not bound by federal rules but may follow persuasive authority)