Fraser v. Jackson
12 N.E.3d 62
Ill. App. Ct.2014Background
- Motor vehicle collision Sept. 4, 2009 in Zion, Illinois; Fraser (plaintiff) vs Jackson (defendant); defendant’s dump truck failed to stop at a stop sign, causing injuries to Fraser; damages awarded including $31,372.43 in medical expenses totaling $61,372.43 verdict; Fraser sued August 2011 seeking >$50,000.
- Discovery over Dr. Skaletsky, defendant’s controlled expert, including Rule 215/216 requests; defendants produced minimal materials and tax returns late; court sanctioned barring Skaletsky testimony as discovery sanction.
- Trial included emergency room and specialist medical testimony (Mangiardi, Paukner, Jayaprakash) supporting reasonableness/necessity of treatment; some bills admitted; Aurora Medical Center billing testimony via teleconference to establish reasonableness.
- Posttrial motions: fees/costs for Aurora testimony granted; new trial/additur denied; costs awarded; sanctions for frivolous appeal contemplated.
- Appellate court deemed sanctions appropriate, affirmed circuit court judgment with sanctions against defendant for frivolous appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Barr to testimony by controlled expert | Fraser | Jackson | Sanction upheld: Skaletsky barred |
| Foundation for medical bills admissibility | Fraser's bills were reasonable/necessary | Baker rule requires explicit causation/necessity | Proper foundation for medical bills admitted |
| Costs/attorney fees for securing testimony | Fees/ costs permissible under Rule 219(b) | Not in good faith; overbroad | Award upheld as within discretion |
| Sanctions on appeal for frivolous conduct | Appeal merited sanctions | Not frivolous | Sanctions affirmed; expectation of future fee determinations |
| Overall judgment affirmed | Judgment supported by evidence | Errors alleged; meritless | Judgment affirmed with sanctions |
Key Cases Cited
- Kubian v. Labinsky, 178 Ill. App. 3d 191 (1988) (sanctions under Rule 219 to enforce discovery)
- Kapsouris v. Rivera, 319 Ill. App. 3d 844 (2011) (disclosure of opinion witnesses; abuse of discretion not shown here)
- Baker v. Hutson, 333 Ill. App. 3d 486 (2002) (causation/necessity questions for medical bills; issues of fact for jury)
- Land & Lakes Co. v. Indus. Comm’n, 359 Ill. App. 3d 582 (2005) (foundation for medical bills may include treating physicians or billing staff)
- Szczeblewski v. Gossett, 342 Ill. App. 3d 344 (2003) (Rule 216 admissions; cost-shifting for proof)
- McGrath v. Botsford, 405 Ill. App. 3d 781 (2010) (Rule 216/219 procedures; good-faith response obligations)
- Thornton v. Garcini, 237 Ill. 2d 100 (2010) (preserves issue by contemporaneous objection and posttrial motions)