Salamah v. Kutom
2025 IL App (1st) 231520-U
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2025Background
- Plaintiffs Mohammad and Salwa Salamah brought a medical malpractice suit after Mohammad suffered a heart attack (STEMI) and alleged delayed diagnosis and treatment at Advocate Christ Hospital.
- Mohammad was not initially diagnosed with a STEMI despite two EKGs and was admitted to a telemetry floor; treatment occurred hours later after a third EKG confirmed STEMI.
- Multiple defendant doctors and nurses were involved, with the main allegations centering on failure to diagnose the STEMI promptly and failure to administer certain medications and additional EKGs.
- Plaintiffs’ experts (Shubrooks, Glaser) argued protocols were not met and damage was preventable; defense experts maintained care met standards, and initial EKGs were non-diagnostic.
- At trial, certain opinions from plaintiffs’ experts were barred under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 213 for insufficient disclosure; testimony related to lost wage damages was also excluded during trial.
- The jury found for all defendants; plaintiffs appealed, challenging several evidentiary and procedural rulings, improper closing arguments, and handling of their post-trial motion due to a filing system glitch.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exclusion of Expert Testimony (Three Medications) | Should have allowed expert testimony about standard of care and causation related to ER drugs not given | Disclosures did not contain specifics on timing, causation, or sequence required by Rule 213; thus, opinions inadmissible | Circuit court did not abuse discretion; exclusion affirmed |
| Exclusion of Third EKG Testimony | Logical corollary existed allowing experts to opine a cardiologist would have ordered a third EKG | Such opinions not specifically disclosed; standards apply distinctly between defendants; logical corollaries not applicable | Exclusion was within court’s discretion; affirmed |
| Admissibility of Motzny’s Opinions | Claimed Motzny gave new, undisclosed opinions diverging from pretrial testimony | Motzny’s statements were consistent at trial and deposition regarding lack of STEMI on initial EKGs; discrepancies were factual, not new opinions | Discrepancies were proper impeachment issues; no Rule 213 violation |
| Improper Closing Arguments | Defense counsel made prejudicial, out-of-record arguments about plaintiffs' experts and missing witnesses | Arguments were not so prejudicial as to deny fair trial; court instructed jurors to disregard unsupported remarks | Technical impropriety found, but no reversible prejudice; no new trial |
| Striking of Lost Wages Testimony | Exclusion was improper and prejudicial, especially being done mid-testimony | Proper exclusion as damages issue, given the verdict was on liability; method of exclusion not shown to cause prejudice | No error; damages issue moot due to defense verdict |
| Cumulative Error | Multiple errors combined denied a fair trial | Errors isolated and tangential, not fundamentally unfair | No cumulative error; fair trial was given |
Key Cases Cited
- Lazenby v. Mark’s Construction, Inc., 236 Ill. 2d 83 (presumption under general verdict rule)
- Tirado v. Slavin, 2019 IL App (1st) 181705 (strict compliance with Rule 213 expert disclosure required)
- McDonnell v. McPartlin, 192 Ill. 2d 505 (errors relating to damages not material where jury does not reach damages)
- Foley v. Fletcher, 361 Ill. App. 3d 39 (logical corollary standard for expert testimony)
- Brooke Inns, Inc. v. S & R Hi-Fi and TV, 249 Ill. App. 3d 1064 (presumption jury follows limiting instructions)
- Rutledge v. St. Anne’s Hospital, 230 Ill. App. 3d 786 (improper commentary on absent witnesses)