Sikora v. Parikh
122 N.E.3d 327
Ill. App. Ct.2019Background
- Decedent Chris Sikora, recently hospitalized for pneumonia, was at ManorCare under Dr. Nirali Parikh’s care; he died April 9, 2013, of an acute pulmonary embolism. Plaintiff sued for wrongful death and survival, alleging failure to diagnose/treat the embolism.
- Trial evidence focused on whether Dr. Parikh should have placed pulmonary embolism higher on her differential and sent Sikora to the hospital earlier for a CT pulmonary angiogram. Expert testimony disputed that issue.
- Before trial the court granted plaintiff’s motion in limine barring any reference to Sikora’s brief, initial refusal to be transferred to the hospital that morning as irrelevant.
- During closing, defense counsel (1) asked the jury to “stand in [Dr. Parikh]’s shoes” and (2) used a slide and language stating “once [Sikora] agreed to go,” implying he had earlier refused—contradicting the in limine order. Plaintiff objected; court sustained and instructed jury to disregard and remove the slide.
- The jury returned a verdict for defendants. Plaintiff moved for a new trial; the trial court found defense counsel’s remarks (particularly the implied refusal) highly prejudicial and granted a new trial. Defendant appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defense counsel’s “stand in her shoes” (golden rule) argument warranted a new trial | The remark invited juror sympathy and was reversible error | The comment was a prospective, temporal framing to evaluate what Dr. Parikh knew, not an emotional appeal | Court of Appeals: technically improper but not substantially prejudicial in context; by itself did not require a new trial |
| Whether defense counsel’s verbal/visual reference implying Sikora initially refused to go to hospital violated the in limine order and prejudiced plaintiff | The statement and slide violated the in limine order and could shift blame to plaintiff, materially prejudicing the case | The phrasing was contextual and hypothetical about the timeline, not an assertion that Sikora initially refused | Court of Appeals: counsel violated the in limine order; trial court did not abuse discretion in finding the violation highly prejudicial |
| Whether cumulative effect of the two improper remarks required a new trial | The combined errors deprived plaintiff of a fair trial because timeline/control over transfer was central | Defense argued remarks were benign, brief, and cured by objections and instructions | Court of Appeals: cumulative effect justified new trial; trial court’s grant affirmed under deferential abuse-of-discretion standard |
| Standard of review for new-trial grant based on improper argument | N/A | N/A | Appellate standard: extreme deference to trial court; reverse only for abuse of discretion (trial court best positioned to assess prejudice) |
Key Cases Cited
- Wardwell v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 2017 IL 120438 (deferential review of new-trial rulings)
- In re D.T., 212 Ill. 2d 347 (describing deference as the most deferential standard)
- Blum v. Koster, 235 Ill. 2d 21 (definition of abuse of discretion)
- Carlasare v. Wilhelmi, 134 Ill. App. 3d 1 (trial court best positioned to judge prejudicial effect of remarks)
- Offutt v. Pennoyer Merch. Transfer Co., 36 Ill. App. 3d 194 (golden-rule comments may be technically improper but not reversible absent prejudice)
- Wilbourn v. Cavalenes, 398 Ill. App. 3d 837 (an improper comment can be overwhelmingly prejudicial despite curative instruction)