Greco v. Orthopedic & Sports Medicine Clinic, P.C.
2015 IL App (5th) 130370
Ill. App. Ct.2015Background
- Tamara Greco suffered a left-ankle injury on April 29, 2004; treated in ER (X‑rays read negative) and by Orthopedic & Sports Medicine Clinic (PA Spafford on Apr 30; Dr. Vest on May 5).
- On May 5 she complained of increased pain and numbness; Dr. Vest considered DVT but ruled it out on exam and did not order an ultrasound or anticoagulation; she died May 7, 2004 of bilateral pulmonary emboli per autopsy.
- Plaintiffs sued for medical negligence alleging defendants’ failure to diagnose/treat DVT caused death; case tried to a jury which returned verdicts for defendants.
- Plaintiffs appealed, arguing trial court erred on (1) admitting pretrial‑undisclosed and hearsay testimony from decedent’s sister about a ‘‘clotting’’ family history and her carotid diagnosis, (2) permitting defendants’ experts to offer undisclosed opinions/bases, and (3) denying discovery depositions (corporate designee and two employees) regarding missing ER X‑rays.
- Appellate court found sister’s testimony inadmissible hearsay, lacked probative value, and was prejudicial; it also found undisclosed expert opinions were allowed without justification and abused discretion in quashing corporate‑designee discovery; reversed and remanded for new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of sister Kirsten Dover’s testimony about her own carotid diagnosis and her doctor’s statements | Testimony was undisclosed under Rule 213(f), irrelevant hearsay, and unduly prejudicial | They learned the diagnosis only after trial began and gave prompt notice; testimony was non‑hearsay or cumulative | Court: Admission was hearsay, not probative, prejudicial; admitting it was abuse of discretion; reversal warranted |
| Expert witnesses (Dr. Gill, Dr. Vest) offering opinions/bases not disclosed under Rule 213(f) | Defendants’ experts offered new opinions and bases at trial contrary to disclosures and depositions, violating Rule 213 | Some testimony was elaboration; other experts offered similar evidence so no prejudice | Court: Rule 213 requires strict disclosure; defendants offered undisclosed opinions/bases without justification; error noted and admonished for retrial |
| Quashing corporate‑designee deposition under Rule 206 and denying depositions of two Clinic employees about missing ER X‑rays | Plaintiffs needed depositions to locate missing X‑rays, prove nature of injury, and support spoliation claim | Plaintiffs failed to preserve some discovery objections/procedural lapses; defendants argued X‑rays unlikely to be found and injury nature not disputed | Court: Denial of corporate‑designee deposition was manifest abuse of discretion and prejudicial; depositions of two employees were waived by plaintiffs’ procedural failures but court afforded opportunity on remand |
| Prejudice and need for new trial | Admission of hearsay, undisclosed expert testimony, and blocked discovery deprived plaintiffs of fair trial | Errors were harmless given other evidence | Court: Errors (especially Dover’s testimony and undisclosed expert bases) caused substantial prejudice; reversed and remanded for new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Gill v. Foster, 157 Ill. 2d 304 (Ill. 1993) (relevance can be outweighed by prejudice; trial court discretion on evidence admissibility)
- Estate of Parks v. O’Young, 289 Ill. App. 3d 976 (Ill. App. Ct. 1997) (hearsay and probative‑vs‑prejudicial balancing)
- In re Leona W., 228 Ill. 2d 439 (Ill. 2008) (abuse‑of‑discretion standard for admissibility; prejudice requirement for reversal)
- Sullivan v. Edward Hospital, 209 Ill. 2d 100 (Ill. 2004) (strict compliance with Supreme Court Rule 213; no surprise expert testimony)
- Bright v. Dicke, 166 Ill. 2d 204 (Ill. 1995) (Supreme Court Rules have force of law; discovery obligations enforceable)
- D.C. v. S.A., 178 Ill. 2d 551 (Ill. 1997) (purpose and breadth of pretrial discovery)