Morrisroe v. Pantano, 65 N.E.3d 931

Viola Morrisroe (decedent) had COPD and a new right upper‑lobe lung mass identified on CT in Feb 2009; PET scan did not rule out cancer. A follow‑up CT was done in Sept 2009 during hospitalization for shortness of breath.
Dr. Pantano reviewed the Feb and Sept CTs, concluded the mass had enlarged, recommended and performed a bronchoscopy with biopsy on Oct 1, 2009; bleeding occurred during biopsy and Viola later re‑bled and died.
Plaintiff (special administrator) sued for medical negligence (unnecessary bronchoscopy because mass had not grown) and lack of informed consent (failure to disclose risk of death).
Plaintiff’s retained expert, Dr. Grodzin, opined the mass was stable but at trial sought to add a new basis: that changing the screen contrast on the CT images revealed the Sept image represented vasculature/atelectasis rather than tumor. That particular basis (contrast manipulation) had not been disclosed in Rule 213(f)(3) answers or his deposition.
Trial court barred Dr. Grodzin from testifying about the screen‑contrast basis and sustained objections to portions of plaintiff’s closing that focused on what the decedent personally would have done if told of a risk of death. The jury returned verdict for defendants; court denied JNOV/new trial and plaintiff appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court erred in barring expert testimony that adjusting CT screen contrast showed the mass had not enlarged	Grodzin’s screen‑contrast analysis was part of his review of the CTs and a logical elaboration of his disclosed opinion that the mass was unchanged; exclusion was prejudicial	The screen‑contrast theory was a new, undisclosed basis for the expert opinion and should have been barred under Rule 213	Affirmed: exclusion proper — the contrast theory was a new basis not encompassed by prior disclosures and should have been disclosed/supplemented
Whether trial court erred in sustaining objections to closing‑argument statements about what the decedent would have done if told of a risk of death (informed consent)	Arguing that a reasonable patient in Viola’s shoes (her personal traits and likely actions) would have declined the procedure was proper; counsel was just humanizing the hypothetical reasonable patient	Counsel’s remarks improperly shifted the standard from an objective “reasonable person in the patient’s position” to what this particular patient would have done; statements were misleading	Affirmed: sustaining objections was not an abuse of discretion — counsel improperly framed the standard as the decedent’s subjective choice

Seef v. Ingalls Memorial Hospital, 311 Ill. App. 3d 7 (1999) (expert testimony that adds undisclosed bases exceeds Rule 213 and may be excluded)
Kotvan v. Kirk, 321 Ill. App. 3d 733 (2001) (trial court properly barred undisclosed expert bases; party must disclose bases for expert opinions)
Spaetzel v. Dillon, 393 Ill. App. 3d 806 (2009) (an expert may elaborate if opinion is a logical corollary to disclosed basis)
Iser v. Copley Memorial Hospital, 288 Ill. App. 3d 408 (1997) (trial court did not abuse discretion excluding expert testimony based on undisclosed exhibits/bases)
Sullivan v. Edward Hospital, 209 Ill. 2d 100 (2004) (Rule 213 disclosures are mandatory and strict compliance is required)
Lounsbury v. Yorro, 124 Ill. App. 3d 745 (1984) (trial court may sustain objection to closing argument that uses an inapplicable legal standard)