Eid v. Loyola University Medical Center
72 N.E.3d 851
Ill. App. Ct.2017Background
- Two-year-old Miranda Eid underwent pacemaker replacement at Loyola; post-op she deteriorated and died the same day after resuscitation efforts failed.
- Nurses administered sedatives and analgesics; abnormal blood gas samples were obtained but imaging (echocardiogram, chest X-ray, ultrasound) showed no fluid around the heart; treating physicians decided against reexploration, pericardiocentesis, or ECMO.
- Miranda’s body was released to the funeral home with some medical tubes still in place; ritual washers later removed tubes and observed bleeding, causing Mrs. Eid severe distress.
- Plaintiffs (Mohammed and Lisa Eid) sued for medical negligence and reckless infliction of emotional distress; Loyola invoked the Medical Studies Act privilege to withhold 13 pages of documents generated by a risk manager after a peer-review chair directed an investigation.
- A jury returned verdicts for Loyola on both claims; the trial court had sustained Loyola’s privilege claim and gave a non-IPI instruction on reckless infliction of emotional distress. Plaintiffs appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Medical negligence verdict was against manifest weight of evidence | Blood tests after 9:30 p.m. clearly showed internal bleeding so reexploration/pericardiocentesis/ECMO were required | Imaging and treating physicians showed no evidence of pericardial fluid/tamponade; expert testimony supported noninvasive management | Verdict affirmed; conflicting expert testimony created a factual issue for the jury (no manifest-weight reversal) |
| Reckless infliction of emotional distress verdict was against manifest weight | Leaving tubes in body after autopsy rights declined was reckless and foreseeably caused Mrs. Eid severe distress | Nurses followed supervisor’s instructions amid uncertainty about autopsy; conduct not extreme or highly foreseeable | Verdict affirmed; jury reasonably found conduct not extreme/outrageous or not highly likely to cause severe distress |
| Medical Studies Act privilege for 13 pages generated by MCEAC designee | Documents were generated by a designee (risk manager) at the chair’s directive for peer-review use and are therefore privileged | Same: materials produced after chair’s directive constituted peer-review materials protected by the Act | Privilege applies; trial court’s factual finding that the documents were committee information was not against manifest weight; statute’s "or their designees" language covers such materials |
| Non-IPI jury instruction on extreme/outrageous conduct and counsel’s closing remarks | Instruction distorted elements; counsel’s comments blamed unidentified staff and prejudiced jury | Instruction accurately stated Illinois law (McGrath); closing remarks were within latitude and any misstatement was cured by court admonition and added instructions | Instruction proper and not misleading; no substantial prejudice from closing argument; verdict stands |
Key Cases Cited
- Snelson v. Kamm, 204 Ill. 2d 1 (Ill.) (jury verdict on medical negligence will not be overturned unless against manifest weight; deference where experts conflict)
- Roach v. Springfield Clinic, 157 Ill. 2d 29 (Ill.) (scope and limits of Medical Studies Act privilege; privilege protects committee information but not all pre-review facts)
- McGrath v. Fahey, 126 Ill. 2d 78 (Ill.) (definition of extreme and outrageous conduct for emotional-distress tort)
- Dillon v. Evanston Hosp., 199 Ill. 2d 483 (Ill.) (standards for jury instructions and use of non-IPI instructions)
- Studt v. Sherman Health Sys., 2011 IL 108182 (Ill.) (standard of review when assessing whether instructions accurately state law)
- Maple v. Gustafson, 151 Ill. 2d 445 (Ill.) (appellate courts should not usurp jury factfinding)