Gretencord-Szobar v. Kokoszka
189 N.E.3d 456
Ill. App. Ct.2021Background
- Joanne Gretencord‑Szobar sued as special administrator after her husband Stephen (77) died, alleging Dr. Kokoszka negligently failed to perform exploratory surgery or repair a small‑bowel obstruction shown on X‑rays (Feb. 17–19).
- Stephen had extensive comorbidities (advanced mantle‑cell lymphoma, severe heart failure, renal and liver dysfunction, respiratory failure) and was evaluated by multiple consultants; Kokoszka was the surgical consultant to determine whether surgery was indicated.
- Imaging showed a possible small‑bowel obstruction versus an ileus and a mildly enlarged appendix at different times; there was no clear peritonitis or radiographic evidence of a repairable intra‑abdominal process; an NG tube and supportive care were used; patient deteriorated to multisystem organ failure and died after comfort‑care decisions.
- Plaintiff’s surgical expert testified surgery was indicated and failure to operate caused death; defendants’ experts testified no surgical target existed, ileus usually resolves nonoperatively, and Stephen was a very high surgical risk unlikely to survive surgery.
- At trial the court instructed with IPI Civil No. 15.01 (proximate cause may be multiple causes) and a modified IPI No. 31.13 (life expectancy 1–3 years based on plaintiff’s expert); it refused plaintiff’s proposed short‑form IPI No. 12.05 and a nonpattern lost‑chance instruction; jury returned defense verdict. On appeal plaintiff challenged those instruction rulings and the life‑expectancy modification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Denial of short‑form IPI No. 12.05 (proximate cause instruction) | Jury needed instruction that defendant need not be sole proximate cause; otherwise jury might think it must pick only one cause | IPI No. 15.01 (given) already informs jury multiple proximate causes are permissible, so 12.05 was unnecessary | Affirmed — no abuse of discretion: IPI No. 15.01 expressly allows more than one proximate cause, so short form was unnecessary |
| Refusal of nonpattern lost‑chance instruction (recovery‑chance/deprivation language) | Holton supports lost‑chance instruction; jury should be allowed to consider deprivation of chance to better outcome as proximate cause | Pattern instruction IPI No. 15.01 adequately states law on lost chance; nonpattern instruction was unnecessary/inaccurate | Affirmed — no abuse of discretion: courts repeatedly hold IPI No. 15.01 properly states lost‑chance law and nonpattern instruction was unnecessary |
| Modification of IPI No. 31.13 (life expectancy) | Plaintiff sought life‑table (general) life expectancy (~10 years) instruction | Court relied on uncontested expert testimony that decedent’s life expectancy was 1–3 years due to incurable mantle‑cell lymphoma | Affirmed — no abuse of discretion: life expectancy is a medical question requiring expert proof; plaintiff’s expert testimony was undisputed, so modification to 1–3 years was appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Leonardi v. Loyola University of Chicago, 168 Ill. 2d 83 (1995) (standard for reviewing jury instructions; jury must be fairly and fully instructed)
- Villa v. Crown Cork & Seal Co., 202 Ill. App. 3d 1082 (1990) (trial court has discretion to determine which instructions the evidence raises)
- Lundquist v. Nickels, 238 Ill. App. 3d 410 (1992) (instruction refusal reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Campbell v. Wagner, 303 Ill. App. 3d 609 (1999) (instruction language confirming multiple proximate causes)
- Ellig v. Delnor Community Hospital, 237 Ill. App. 3d 396 (1992) (distinguishable where No. 15.01 was not given)
- Holton v. Memorial Hospital, 176 Ill. 2d 95 (1997) (discusses lost‑chance and proximate‑cause instruction issues)
- Cetera v. DiFilippo, 404 Ill. App. 3d 20 (2010) (refusal of nonpattern lost‑chance instructions affirmed where IPI No. 15.01 applies)
- Sinclair v. Berlin, 325 Ill. App. 3d 458 (2001) (similar affirmance rejecting nonpattern lost‑chance instructions)
- Lambie v. Schneider, 305 Ill. App. 3d 421 (1999) (same)
- Henry v. McKechnie, 298 Ill. App. 3d 268 (1998) (same)
- Morus v. Kapusta, 339 Ill. App. 3d 483 (2003) (life expectancy is a medical question requiring expert testimony; trial court may modify IPI life‑expectancy instruction to reflect expert evidence)