Fakes v. Eloy
8 N.E.3d 93
Ill. App. Ct.2014Background
- Mary Fakes, as special administratrix for Laura Powell's estate, sued Victor Eloy, M.D., and Internal Medicine Subspecialty Associates, Ltd. for medical malpractice based on treatment of Powell after esophageal variceal bleeding; Powell died from GI bleeding in November 2004.
- The case proceeded to a six-day trial in March 2012, resulting in a defense verdict for Eloy.
- Fakes appealed asserting Rule 213 violations, improper completeness evidence, Petrillo-ex parte communications, hearsay, and barred evidence, plus jury-strike issues.
- On Rule 213, the appellate court found Eloy undisclosed opinions about contributing factors violated the rule and prejudiced Fakes; reversal was warranted.
- The court remanded for a new trial; it also addressed evidentiary rulings (completeness, Petrillo, hearsay, barred evidence) but reserved final rulings for the remand.
- The central issue on appeal was whether Eloy's undisclosed opinions regarding the cause of death violated Rule 213 and required reversal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rule 213 violation by undisclosed death-causation opinions | Fakes argues Eloy failed to supplement deposition with other contributing factors. | Eloy contends his other factors were not new opinions and Pertains to extrapolation. | Yes; violation; reversal and remand for new trial. |
| Rule 213 compliance and remedy | Sanctions appropriate to cure prejudice. | Remedy need not be severe beyond permissible sanctions. | Remand for new trial; sanctions warranted. |
| Rule of Completeness admission | Completeness evidence was improper to place impeachment in context. | Admissible to provide full context; not prejudicial. | Admission proper; no reversible error beyond Rule 213 issue. |
| Petrillo ex parte communications | Defense letters to treating physicians violated Petrillo doctrine. | Contact was de minimis and scheduling, not improper. | Trial court did not abuse discretion; Petrillo not violated. |
| Evidentiary rulings (hearsay, barred evidence, and juror-issues) | Hearsay and barred evidence prejudiced Fakes; juror-strike denial prejudicial. | Rulings were proper or within discretion; no plain error. | No reversal on these points; however Rule 213 violation governs outcome. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sullivan v. Edward Hospital, 209 Ill. 2d 100 (Ill. 2004) (Rule 213 discovery and disclosure standards; abuse-of-discretion standard of review)
- Clayton v. County of Cook, 346 Ill. App. 3d 367 (Ill. App. 1st Dist. 2003) (Sanctions and remedies for Rule 213 violations; mistrial not automatic)
- Garlock Sealing Technologies, LLC v. White, 373 Ill. App. 3d 309 (Ill. App. 1st Dist. 2007) (Rule 213 disclosures and reliance on disclosed opinions)
- Mahan v. Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co., 203 Ill. App. 3d 748 (Ill. App. 5th Dist. 1990) (Petrillo doctrine and public policy on ex parte communications)
- Petrillo v. Syntex Laboratories, Inc., 148 Ill. App. 3d 581 (Ill. App. 1st Dist. 1986) (Ex parte communications with treating physicians prohibited)