Doe v. University of Chicago Medical Center
20 N.E.3d 1
Ill. App. Ct.2014Background
- Jane Doe underwent a kidney transplant at University of Chicago Medical Center (UCMC) in January 2007 and later tested positive for HIV and hepatitis C; donor had tested negative but was classified CDC “high-risk” (male who had sex with men).
- Plaintiff sued alleging failure to obtain informed consent about donor’s high-risk status; originally sued both UCMC and Dr. Thistlethwaite but voluntarily dismissed the doctor before trial and proceeded against UCMC alone based on respondeat superior.
- At trial, nurse coordinator Katrina Harmon testified she customarily informed patients of donor social history and had called the plaintiff regarding the offer; surgeon Dr. Thistlethwaite and UCMC witnesses testified it was within the standard of care for the surgeon to delegate disclosure to the nurse coordinator.
- The jury received two contradictory instructions: a modified IPI (No. 50.01) tendered by UCMC stating UCMC was liable only if Dr. Thistlethwaite (an agent) was found liable, and plaintiff’s instruction (IPI No. 50.02) stating acts of both Dr. Thistlethwaite and nurse Harmon were attributable to UCMC.
- The jury returned a verdict for UCMC; plaintiff moved for a new trial arguing the UCMC instruction was legally incorrect and prejudicial because Harmon was not a defendant and the modified instruction prevented the jury from finding UCMC liable based on Harmon’s conduct.
- The trial court denied a new trial; the appellate court reversed and remanded, holding the modified instruction was an inaccurate statement of law in context, contradicted plaintiff’s instruction, and caused serious prejudice requiring retrial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether giving UCMC’s modified IPI No. 50.01 instruction was erroneous | The modified instruction misstates law and misleads jury to consider only surgeon liability, depriving plaintiff of her respondeat superior theory based on nurse Harmon | Instruction proper because it links principal liability to agent liability and other instructions allow consideration of nurse’s acts | Reversed: modified instruction was inaccurate in context and contradicted plaintiff’s correct instruction; error was prejudicial and warrants new trial |
| Whether the inaccurate instruction could be cured by plaintiff’s correct IPI No. 50.02 | Plaintiff: a directly contradictory instruction cannot be cured; jury forced to choose between instructions | UCMC/trial court: remaining instructions, including plaintiff’s, allowed jury to hold UCMC liable for nurse or surgeon conduct, curing error | Held: not cured; Jenkins controls—contradictory essential-element instructions are reversible error |
| Whether the instructional error prejudiced plaintiff’s right to fair trial | Plaintiff: error seriously prejudiced her because jury could not meaningfully consider nurse Harmon’s conduct and was effectively required to find liability only if nonparty surgeon was liable | UCMC: verdict supported by evidence; any instructional tension harmless given other instructions | Held: prejudice shown — there is a reasonable basis the verdict could differ absent the error, so new trial required |
| Whether other raised issues (verdict weight, improper argument) require reversal | Plaintiff sought review but primary reversible error is instructional; other issues not reached | UCMC: urged affirmance on other grounds | Court did not address remaining issues because instruction error alone mandates new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Jenkins, 69 Ill. 2d 61 (Ill. 1977) (contradictory jury instructions on essential elements require new trial)
- Dillon v. Evanston Hospital, 199 Ill. 2d 483 (Ill. 2002) (instructions must state law fairly and not mislead jury)
- Barth v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 228 Ill. 2d 163 (Ill. 2008) (review of whether an instruction accurately conveys law is de novo)
- Colls v. City of Chicago, 212 Ill. App. 3d 904 (Ill. App. Ct.) (use IPI instructions exclusively when they accurately state applicable law)
- Ellig v. Delnor Community Hospital, 237 Ill. App. 3d 396 (Ill. App. Ct.) (party entitled to jury instruction on theory of the case)
- Lambie v. Schneider, 305 Ill. App. 3d 421 (Ill. App. Ct.) (verdict may be upset if instructional error likely changed outcome)
- Mikolajczyk v. Ford Motor Co., 231 Ill. 2d 516 (Ill. 2008) (inadequate jury instructions that prevent correct application of law justify retrial)
- McCarthy v. Kunicki, 355 Ill. App. 3d 957 (Ill. App. Ct.) (new trial required only when party’s right to fair trial is seriously prejudiced)