Eid v. Loyola University Medical Center
2016 IL App (1st) 143967
Ill. App. Ct.2016Background
- Two-year-old Miranda Eid died after complications during recovery from pacemaker replacement at Loyola University Medical Center; resuscitation efforts failed after deterioration in the evening of surgery.
- Postmortem, nurses left some medical tubes in place when releasing the body; family declined private autopsy and medical examiner waived autopsy, but hospital staff had some uncertainty about autopsy status.
- At the funeral home, ritual washers discovered tubes and removal caused visible bleeding, traumatizing Mrs. Eid; plaintiffs alleged negligent medical care caused death and sought damages for reckless infliction of emotional distress for the funeral-home incident.
- Loyola’s risk manager, acting at the direction of the chair of the hospital’s Medical Care Evaluation and Analysis Committee (MCEAC), gathered materials for peer review; Loyola withheld 13 pages of documents as privileged under the Medical Studies Act (735 ILCS 5/8‑2101).
- Jury trial produced a defense verdict on both negligence and reckless-infliction claims; trial court sustained privilege for the 13 pages; plaintiffs appealed arguing verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence, privilege misapplied, erroneous jury instruction, and improper closing argument.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Medical negligence verdict was against manifest weight of evidence | Blood tests showed internal bleeding; re-exploratory surgery should have been performed | Imaging (echo, x-ray) and treating physicians’ testimony supported decision not to re-explore; blood tests likely unreliable | Verdict for Loyola upheld — conflicting expert testimony made jury determination reasonable; not against manifest weight |
| Reckless infliction of emotional distress | Leaving tubes on body after autopsy waived was extreme, caused severe distress to Mrs. Eid | Nurses followed supervisor orders amid uncertainty; removal could have been improper if autopsy possible | Verdict for Loyola upheld — jury reasonably found conduct not extreme/outrageous and nurses lacked knowledge of high probability of severe distress |
| Medical Studies Act privilege for documents compiled by designee | Documents created before full committee convened are not privileged; Roach controls | 1995 amendment added “or their designees”; chair and risk manager were authorized designees gathering info for peer review | Privilege upheld — statute’s plain language covers designees and factual record supported that documents were gathered at committee chair’s directive for MCEAC review |
| Jury instruction & closing argument | Instruction misstates law on “extreme and outrageous”; closing comments blamed unidentified others causing confusion | Instruction quoted Supreme Court precedent; closing argument within latitude and court cured any error with additional instructions | No reversible error — instruction accurate statement of law; any potential prejudice from closing argument cured by court admonition and corrective instructions |
Key Cases Cited
- Snelson v. Kamm, 204 Ill. 2d 1 (discusses deference to jury in conflicting expert cases)
- Roach v. Springfield Clinic, 157 Ill. 2d 29 (limits peer-review privilege to committee information unless statute authorizes designees)
- McGrath v. Fahey, 126 Ill. 2d 78 (statement of extreme and outrageous standard for emotional-distress tort)
- Wiegman v. Hitch‑Inn Post of Libertyville, 308 Ill. App. 3d 789 (weight of expert opinion is for the jury)
- Maple v. Gustafson, 151 Ill. 2d 445 (court will not usurp jury’s factfinding)
- Zajac v. St. Mary of Nazareth Hosp. Ctr., 212 Ill. App. 3d 779 (Act protects nature and content of internal review process)
- Dillon v. Evanston Hosp., 199 Ill. 2d 483 (standard for reviewing jury instructions)