Essig v. Advocate Bromenn Medical Center
33 N.E.3d 288
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2015Background
- Kathryn Essig (24) underwent ureteroscopy at BroMenn on April 8, 2008; Dr. Lange used electrohydraulic lithotripsy (EHL) after a stone became stuck, tearing her ureter and leading to ongoing complications; she died in March 2009 of a pulmonary thromboembolism.
- Kathryn’s parents sued Lange and Carle for malpractice and added institutional-negligence claims against Advocate BroMenn Medical Center (BroMenn).
- Plaintiffs’ institutional-negligence theory alleged BroMenn negligently credentialed/supervised Lange, permitted unnecessary procedures (including EHL), failed to obtain/enforce informed consent, and failed to provide a holmium laser.
- Plaintiffs primarily relied on a section 2-622 written report by Dr. Jay Copeland (unsworn) and Rule 213 disclosures; BroMenn submitted affidavits (including nurse Kelly Cone) addressing scope of nursing practice and equipment availability practices.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for BroMenn; plaintiffs appealed. The appellate court affirmed, holding plaintiffs offered no admissible expert evidence creating a triable institutional-negligence claim and that much relied-upon material was inadmissible for summary-judgment purposes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether BroMenn was liable for negligent credentialing of Dr. Lange | BroMenn failed to exercise reasonable care in granting privileges to Lange (Copeland’s report) | No admissible evidence that BroMenn knew or should have known Lange was unqualified; Copeland lacked knowledge about BroMenn’s credentialing | Summary judgment for BroMenn — plaintiffs produced no admissible expert proof on hospital credentialing duty or breach |
| Whether BroMenn breached an institutional duty by permitting the ureteroscopy/EHL | BroMenn permitted an unnecessary/unsupported procedure on its premises | Medical decisions were within surgeon’s discretion; nursing staff not required or qualified to second-guess intraoperative surgical choices | Summary judgment for BroMenn — no evidence hospital agents knew procedure was inappropriate; nursing scope precludes intervention |
| Whether BroMenn failed to secure informed consent for EHL | Consent form did not specifically mention EHL; hospital failed to enforce its informed-consent policy | Consent form authorized reasonable intraoperative extensions; no admissible evidence hospital caused lack of informed consent | Summary judgment for BroMenn — consent language authorized additional procedures and plaintiffs offered no admissible evidence linking hospital conduct to lack of consent |
| Whether BroMenn was negligent for not having a holmium laser available | BroMenn should have had a holmium laser available (Copeland) | Hospitals reasonably rely on third-party provision of specialized equipment; no standard requires prepositioning all specialized devices | Summary judgment for BroMenn — plaintiffs presented no admissible evidence that institutional standard required owning/stocking a holmium laser |
Key Cases Cited
- Jones v. Chicago HMO Ltd. of Illinois, 191 Ill. 2d 278 (discussion of institutional negligence as hospital's own administrative duty)
- Robidoux v. Oliphant, 201 Ill. 2d 324 (Rule 191(a) and stricter affidavit requirements for summary-judgment expert submissions)
- Frigo v. Silver Cross Hosp. & Medical Ctr., 377 Ill. App. 3d 43 (elements for negligent credentialing claims)
- Longnecker v. Loyola Univ. Med. Ctr., 383 Ill. App. 3d 874 (hospital judged by what a reasonably careful hospital would do)
- Evans v. Brown, 399 Ill. App. 3d 238 (procedures and practice regarding motions to bar/strike evidence at summary judgment)
- Fabiano v. City of Palos Hills, 336 Ill. App. 3d 635 (courts may sua sponte evaluate sufficiency/admissibility of affidavits on de novo review)
- Allen v. Meyer, 14 Ill. 2d 284 (purpose and public importance of summary judgment procedure)