Drakeford v. University of Chicago Hospitals
994 N.E.2d 119
Ill. App. Ct.2013Background
- Plaintiff Alexandria Drakeford sued University of Chicago Hospitals over the death of her infant Valentina Dearring and alleged willful and wanton interference with possession of the remains after burial; initial claims also included wrongful death and survival based on medical negligence.
- Valentina was born with persistent pulmonary hypertension and died on April 10, 2003; plaintiff contends the hospital buried Valentina without consent and without performing a requested autopsy.
- A jury rejected medical negligence claims but found in favor of plaintiff on the willful and wanton disposition-of-remains claim, awarding $4.6 million.
- The trial court remitted damages to $3 million conditioned on plaintiff’s acceptance; defendant appeals and plaintiff cross-appeals challenging the remittitur.
- The issues include whether hospital conduct was willful and wanton, timeliness under the statute of limitations, whether contributory negligence instruction was proper, admissibility of autopsy-related testimony under Rule 213, and whether damages/remittitur were proper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the hospital’s burial conduct willful and wanton? | Drakeford argues Griggers’ improper handling showed utter indifference. | Hospital contends conduct did not show utter indifference. | Yes, substantial evidence supported willful and wanton conduct. |
| Is the claim time-barred by the five-year statute of limitations? | Discovery rule extended accrual to July/August 2003 when autopsy and death certificate issues arose. | Limitation began earlier, in June 2003, when told no autopsy was performed. | Not time-barred; discovery rule applied to July/August 2003 knowledge. |
| Was a contributory negligence instruction warranted? | Plaintiff did not contribute by failing to obtain burial arrangements. | Plaintiff had a duty to arrange for burial or take possession. | No contributory negligence instruction warranted. |
| Did the trial court abuse Rule 213 and related testimony on autopsy? | Rule 213 disclosure justified expert autopsy-related testimony. | Testimony should have been admitted only if properly disclosed. | Court did not abuse discretion in striking autopsy testimony; Rule 213 controls. |
| Was the damages award and remittitur appropriate? | Emotional distress and burial harms justified substantial damages. | Remittitur appropriate if verdict excessive. | Remittitur affirmed; damages reduced to $3 million. |
Key Cases Cited
- Snelson v. Kamm, 204 Ill. 2d 1 (Ill. 2003) (standard for JNOV, Pedrick framework; de novo review of verdicts)
- Pedrick v. Peoria & Eastern R.R. Co., 37 Ill. 2d 494 (Ill. 1967) (maximum limits for JNOV in light of evidence)
- Ziarko v. Soo Line R.R. Co., 161 Ill. 2d 267 (Ill. 1994) (willful and wanton defined; degrees between negligence and intentional conduct)
- Mesinger v. O’Hara, 189 Ill. App. 3d 48 (Ill. App. 1914) (duty of next of kin to bury; dicta on decedent’s rights)
- Oelze v. Score Sports Venture, LLC, 401 Ill. App. 3d 110 (Ill. App. 2010) (jury issues; standard for reviewing factual determinations)
- Spence v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 34 Ill. App. 3d 1059 (Ill. App. 1975) (reckless willful and wanton conduct; evidence of disregard)
- Kelso v. Watson, 204 Ill. App. 3d 727 (Ill. App. 1990) (elements of willful and wanton misconduct)
- Maple v. Gustafson, 151 Ill. 2d 445 (Ill. 1992) (standard for weighing conflicting evidence; deference to jury)
- Best v. Taylor Machine Works, 179 Ill. 2d 367 (Ill. 1997) (remittitur; when to reduce jury awards)