Sekerez v. Rush University Medical Center
954 N.E.2d 383
Ill. App. Ct.2011Background
- Decedent diagnosed with terminal CLL; Rush treated him in June 2001 with Lovenox; he refused treatment on multiple occasions; Rush had a consent policy requiring informed consent for treatments posing risks; autopsy showed death from intracranial hemorrhage with no PE evidenced; trial court granted directed verdicts on medical battery and one negligence claim, reversing on appeal for new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether directed verdicts on medical battery were proper | Sekerez argues lack of consent and Rush policy support battery | Rush and doctors contend no consent issue proven and policy not applicable | Directed verdict on battery reversed and remanded |
| Whether Maurice properly liable for medical negligence | Maurice ordered Lovenox despite patient refusals and no creatine clearance checked | Maurice argues her initial dose followed standard; no deviation shown | Directed verdict against Maurice reversed and remanded |
| Whether Rule 213 undisclosed testimony issues warranted error | Rule 213 violations affected admissibility of opinions | Disclosures not properly preserved, issue waived | Issues reviewed on merits; substantial evidentiary errors found on remand |
| Whether trial court improperly limited evidence re standard of care and prior hospitalization | Prior hospitalization evidence relevant to standard of care | Not admissible under Rule 213; relevance contested | Abuse of discretion in limiting cross-examination; remand for new trial |
| Whether cumulative evidentiary rulings deprived fair trial | Multiple rulings unfairly prejudiced plaintiff | Rulings within trial court discretion | Cumulative errors require new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Curtis v. Jaskey, 326 Ill.App.3d 90 (2001) (battery elements and consent)
- Bermudez v. Martinez Trucking, 343 Ill.App.3d 25 (2003) (directed verdict de novo review)
- Saxton v. Toole, 240 Ill.App.3d 204 (1992) (directed verdict standard)
- In re Estate of Allen, 365 Ill.App.3d 378 (2006) (emergency exception four elements)
- Caponi v. Larry's, 236 Ill.App.3d 660 (1992) (admissibility of photographic evidence in loss of society claims)
- State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. M. Walter Roofing Co., 271 Ill.App.3d 42 (1995) (admissibility and cross-examination considerations)
- Lopez v. Northwestern Memorial Hospital, 375 Ill.App.3d 637 (2007) (trial court commentary and fairness concerns)
- Vancura v. Katris, 238 Ill.2d 352 (2010) (Rules governing preservation and review of issues)
- Webber v. Wight & Co., 368 Ill.App.3d 1007 (2006) (evidentiary rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)