Sharbono v. Hilborn
12 N.E.3d 530
Ill. App. Ct.2014Background
- Plaintiff Sharbono was diagnosed with left-breast cancer in August 2006 after prior 2004 imaging suggested a lesion.
- Radiologist Hilborn interpreted the 2004 imaging as benign (BI-RADS 2) and did not order a biopsy or immediate follow-up beyond a recommended yearly screening.
- In May–August 2006, imaging led to a cancer diagnosis and a biopsy confirmed malignancy, followed by extensive cancer treatment including mastectomy and lymph node removal.
- Sharbono sued Hilborn for medical negligence alleging a delay in diagnosing cancer in 2004; the hospital was dismissed after settlement.
- At trial (Nov. 2011), expert testimony differed on standard of care and causation; the defense sought to present a PowerPoint demonstrative exhibit (No. 18) based on a learned treatise.
- The jury returned a verdict for Hilborn; Sharbono challenged multiple trial rulings, including the demonstrative exhibit and jury instructions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of demonstrative exhibit 18 | Demonstrative relied on unproven treatise images; disclosure was improper; foundation was lacking. | Exhibit aided understanding; timely disclosure occurred; proper foundation existed for demonstrative use. | Reversible error; remand for new trial. |
| Posttrial motions denial | Evidence and issues warranted judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial. | There was substantial evidence supporting the verdict; no basis for JNOV or new trial. | Not dispositive of outcome on remand; review deferred to retrial. |
| Standard of care instruction (IPI 105.01) | Proposed instruction, aligned with Studt, should have been given; current instruction misstates law. | Defendant's instruction was correct; Studt changes addressed on retrial. | Not decided on merits; updated instruction will be given on retrial. |
| Mitigation of damages instruction | IPI 105.08 was improper and prejudicial. | Instruction supported by evidence and appropriate. | Properly given; affirmed as non-prejudicial on retrial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Leona W. v. Leona W., 228 Ill. 2d 439 (Ill. 2008) (abuse-of-discretion standard for evidentiary rulings; reversal only for substantial prejudice)
- Troyan v. Reyes, 367 Ill. App. 3d 729 (Ill. App. Ct. 4th Dist. 2006) (forfeiture in evidence and plain-error considerations in trial rulings)
- Schuler v. Mid-Central Cardiology, 313 Ill. App. 3d 326 (Ill. App. Ct. 2d Dist. 2000) (demonstrative evidence admissibility and appellate review standards)
- Sherman v. Cryns, 203 Ill. 2d 264 (Ill. 2003) (criteria for admissibility and relevance of demonstrative evidence)
- Wilson v. Clark, 84 Ill. 2d 186 (Ill. 1981) (foundation requirements for expert reliance on learned treatises under Rule 703)
- Studt v. Sherman Health Systems, 2011 IL 108182 (Ill. 2011) (revisions to standard-of-care instructions in light of Studt decision)
- O’Casek v. Children’s Home & Aid Society of Illinois, 229 Ill. 2d 421 (Ill. 2008) (forfeiture considerations and addressing issues of law on reconsideration)
- York v. El-Ganzouri, 353 Ill. App. 3d 1 (Ill. App. Ct. 2d Dist. 2004) (procedural objections and preservation of error on appeal)
- Central Steel & Wire Co. v. Coating Research Corp., 53 Ill. App. 3d 943 (Ill. App. Ct. 1st Dist. 1977) (waiver and preservation principles in appellate review)