Roach v. Union Pacific Railroad
19 N.E.3d 61
Ill. App. Ct.2014Background
- Clarence Roach, a Union Pacific carman (≈$60,000/yr), was struck by a train at work on Feb 1, 2008 and sustained serious injuries; he returned to work on Mar 9, 2009.
- Roach sued under the Federal Employers Liability Act; he suffered a stroke in Mar 2010 and died May 15, 2010; complaint was amended after death to assert survival and wrongful death claims.
- At trial plaintiff (Priscilla Roach, special administrator) presented medical testimony including from treating physician Dr. Manzoor Shah; defendant presented its own expert (Dr. Hartman).
- Parties stipulated lost wages for the off-work period (Feb 2, 2008–Mar 9, 2009) as $63,561.67, but the jury awarded $180,000 on the verdict line for "Loss of Earnings."
- Jury returned total damages of $2,270,000, reduced by comparative fault (Roach 30%, Union Pacific 70%) to a recoverable $1,589,000; posttrial motions were denied and judgment was entered for plaintiff.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Preclusion of questioning about spouses living separately | Roach argued living arrangements were irrelevant and would confuse jury; frequent contact shown | Union Pacific argued separation bore on plaintiff’s knowledge of decedent’s pain/suffering | Trial court did not abuse discretion in precluding references to marital status/living arrangements; affirmed |
| 2) Admissibility of treating physician Dr. Shah’s opinion on cause of death | Roach: Dr. Shah treated decedent for ~10 years and disclosed opinions in discovery; lapse in treatment goes to weight, not admissibility | Union Pacific: Rule 213 disclosure violation and 17‑month lapse rendered Shah incompetent to opine on cause of death | Court found no Rule 213 violation and no abuse of discretion admitting Shah’s opinion; lapse goes to weight for jury |
| 3) Rule 213 disclosure compliance for Dr. Shah | Roach: discovery deposition and answers gave reasonable notice of Shah’s opinions | Union Pacific: Shah’s evidence deposition expanded his opinions beyond discovery responses | Court held discovery deposition provided reasonable notice under Rule 213(f)(2); no prejudice or surprise |
| 4) Remittitur of "lost earnings" award | Roach: total award supported by evidence and jury allocation; jury discretion on itemization | Union Pacific: jury exceeded stipulated lost wages and likely used wrong verdict line, requiring remittitur | Court declined remittitur — no basis to conclude the line choice inflated total award; verdict within jury’s reasonable discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Sullivan v. Edward Hospital, 209 Ill. 2d 100 (2004) (foundational and competency requirements for physicians testifying as experts)
- Decker v. Libell, 193 Ill. 2d 250 (2000) (factors for admitting treating physician testimony after lapse in treatment; gatekeeping/totality approach)
- Lebron v. Gottlieb Memorial Hospital, 237 Ill. 2d 217 (2010) (standards and duty for remittitur/new trial when jury award is excessive)
- Best v. Taylor Machine Works, 179 Ill. 2d 367 (1997) (discussion of remittitur and deference to jury on damages)
- Barry v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 282 Ill. App. 3d 199 (1996) (refusal to reduce award where verdict-form formatting raised speculation about jury line usage)
- Soto v. Gaytan, 313 Ill. App. 3d 137 (2000) (objections to depositions ruled on pretrial need not be repeated when read at trial)
- Wakeford v. Rodehouse Restaurants of Missouri, Inc., 154 Ill. 2d 543 (1993) (treating physicians are not "retained" experts for disclosure rules)
- Cetera v. DiFilippo, 404 Ill. App. 3d 20 (2010) (treating physicians are independent expert witnesses under Rule 213)