Eid v. Loyola University Medical Center
2017 IL App (1st) 143967
Ill. App. Ct.2017Background
- Two-year-old Miranda Eid underwent pacemaker replacement at Loyola; postoperative deterioration led to prolonged resuscitation and death the same evening.
- Parents (Mohammed and Lisa Eid) sued Loyola for medical negligence (failure to re-explore/pericardiocentesis/ECMO in light of blood gas results) and Mrs. Eid sued for reckless infliction of emotional distress (tubes left in body released to funeral home causing traumatic washing incident).
- Loyola’s treating physicians and defense experts relied on imaging (echocardiogram, chest x-ray) showing no pericardial fluid and opined blood tests were unreliable/diluted; defense testified interventions withheld were reasonable.
- After death, Loyola risk manager (Ostrowski) was directed by MCEAC chair (Dr. Cherry) to investigate; Loyola withheld 13 pages of documents as privileged under the Medical Studies Act, producing pre-directive materials but claiming privilege for materials generated after the directive.
- A jury found for Loyola on both claims; trial court upheld Medical Studies Act privilege for the 13 pages; plaintiffs appealed arguing verdicts were against manifest weight, privilege was improper, jury instruction on reckless emotional distress was erroneous, and defense closing remarks prejudiced the jury.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether verdict for defendant on medical negligence was against the manifest weight of the evidence | Evidence (blood gas tests) clearly showed internal bleeding and required re-exploration/pericardiocentesis/ECMO | Imaging and treating physicians showed no fluid/tamponade; blood tests unreliable; treatment reasonable | Affirmed — jury verdict not against manifest weight; classic battle of experts justified verdict for Loyola |
| Whether verdict for defendant on reckless infliction of emotional distress was against the manifest weight of the evidence | Nurse conduct (leaving tubes) was extreme/outrageous and foreseeably caused severe distress when tubes were seen at funeral home | Nurses followed supervisor orders amid uncertainty about autopsy; did not know ritual details; conduct not extreme nor highly likely to cause severe distress | Affirmed — jury reasonably found no extreme/outrageous conduct or no high probability of severe distress |
| Whether 13 pages created by Ostrowski after Cherry’s directive were privileged under the Medical Studies Act (peer-review designees) | Documents were not "information of" the committee because they predated formal committee action or were investigatory and thus discoverable | Statute protects information of peer-review committees "or their designees" used for internal quality control; bylaws authorized Cherry to direct designees; materials used in MCEAC deliberations are privileged | Affirmed — plain language (post-1995 amendment) covers designees; trial court’s factual finding that documents were generated as part of MCEAC review not against manifest weight |
| Whether trial court erred in giving Loyola’s non-IPI instruction on "extreme and outrageous" and whether defense closing remarks prejudiced plaintiffs | Instruction distorted elements, conflated severity and outrageousness; closing argument improperly blamed unidentified employees causing confusion | Instruction quoted Illinois Supreme Court authority; counsel’s remarks were within allowable latitude and court cured any possible prejudice with rulings and remedial instructions | Affirmed — instruction accurately stated law (McGrath); no substantial prejudice from closing arguments; curative instructions adequate |
Key Cases Cited
- Snelson v. Kamm, 204 Ill. 2d 1 (battle of experts standard; verdict overturned only if against manifest weight)
- Roach v. Springfield Clinic, 157 Ill. 2d 29 (scope and limits of Medical Studies Act privilege; purpose of peer-review confidentiality)
- McGrath v. Fahey, 126 Ill. 2d 78 (definition of "extreme and outrageous" conduct for emotional distress tort)
- Dillon v. Evanston Hospital, 199 Ill. 2d 483 (standards for jury instructions and use of non-IPI instructions)