Ittersagen v. Advocate Health and Hospitals Corp., 186 N.E.3d 378

Plaintiff Thomas Ittersagen sued Advocate Health and Hospitals Corporation (Advocate Medical) and Dr. Anita Thakadiyil for medical malpractice; an 11‑day jury trial proceeded and a jury was sworn.
On the 7th day juror William Glascott sent a note disclosing a business relationship between his employer (Green Courte Partners) and the “Advocate Health Care System Endowment”; he said he had forgotten to disclose it during voir dire and insisted he could be impartial.
Glascott, Green Courte’s chief investment officer, said Green Courte serves as a general partner to funds whose limited partners include the endowment; he acknowledged a fiduciary duty to the endowment but denied any fiduciary duty to Advocate Medical and said his compensation would not be affected by the lawsuit.
The trial court questioned the juror, credited his demeanor and testimony, found any relationship to Advocate Medical attenuated, denied plaintiff’s motion to strike for cause, and kept Glascott on the jury; the jury returned a defense verdict.
The appellate court affirmed; plaintiff sought judicial notice of Advocate’s 2018 Form 990 (arguing it showed the endowment and Advocate Medical were the same) but the appellate court declined the late request; the Illinois Supreme Court affirmed, holding no implied bias and that the judicial‑notice argument was forfeited.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether juror Glascott’s relationship with the Advocate endowment created implied bias requiring removal	Glascott’s fiduciary duty to the endowment (allegedly affiliated with Advocate Medical) creates a presumption of bias	No direct relationship shown between Glascott and Advocate Medical; relationship is attenuated and juror testified he could be impartial	Court held no implied bias as a matter of law: record showed no direct fiduciary duty to Advocate Medical and relationship was too attenuated; trial court’s credibility finding not against manifest weight
Whether appellate court should take judicial notice of Advocate’s Form 990 to prove affiliation	The Form 990 shows the endowment and Advocate Medical are the same, proving juror’s duty extended to Advocate Medical	Plaintiff forfeited the issue by failing to present the document in the trial court; the form is ambiguous and open to interpretation	Held forfeited; appellate court properly refused late judicial notice and Supreme Court declined to consider the document on appeal

Brown v. United States, 411 U.S. 223 (1973) (there is no right to a perfect trial; fairness standard applies)
McDonough Power Equip., Inc. v. Greenwood, 464 U.S. 548 (1984) (practical limits on perfect voir dire and juror challenges)
In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133 (1955) (no one may be judge in his own case; importance of preventing probability of unfairness)
United States v. Wood, 299 U.S. 123 (1936) (distinguishing actual and implied juror bias; bias may be legally presumed from certain relationships)
Crawford v. United States, 212 U.S. 183 (1909) (historic statement that certain relationships imply juror disqualification)
Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209 (1982) (implied‑bias questions present legal issues reviewable de novo)
People v. Cole, 54 Ill. 2d 401 (1973) (trial judge’s credibility findings on juror impartiality reviewed for manifest weight)
City of Naperville v. Wehrle, 340 Ill. 579 (1930) (juror employment or stewardship for a party can create presumed bias)
People v. Porter, 111 Ill. 2d 386 (1986) (posttrial allegation of juror bias requires supporting proof; speculative claims insufficient)
Marcin v. Kipfer, 117 Ill. App. 3d 1065 (1983) (very close patient‑physician relationships may require juror exclusion)