Stanphill v. Ortberg
91 N.E.3d 928
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- In September 2005 Keith Stanphill, showing marked decline (weight loss, lethargy, mood change), met with Lori Ortberg, a licensed clinical social worker employed by Rockford Memorial Hospital, via the hospital EAP. Ortberg completed a chart and a patient questionnaire; the chart recorded no suicidal ideation but the questionnaire indicated frequent thoughts of harming self/others and other depressive symptoms.
- Ortberg diagnosed adjustment disorder with depressed mood, referred Keith to marriage counseling, and did not take emergency steps (hold him, call family/EMS or send him to ER). Nine days later Keith died by suicide (carbon monoxide asphyxiation).
- Plaintiff (administrator of decedent’s estate) sued for wrongful death/survival, arguing Ortberg breached the standard of care (misdiagnosed, failed to perform proper lethality/mental-status assessment and failed to refer), causing the suicide. Plaintiff and defense presented competing experts on breach and foreseeability.
- At trial the jury returned a general verdict for plaintiff awarding ~$1.5 million, but answered a defendant-requested special interrogatory: “Was it reasonably foreseeable to Lori Ortberg on September 30, 2005 that Keith Stanphill would commit suicide on or before October 9, 2005?” with “No.” The trial court entered judgment for defendants based on that interrogatory.
- Plaintiff appealed, arguing the special-interrogatory answer was not irreconcilable with the general verdict or that the interrogatory was improperly worded. The appellate court reversed and remanded with directions to enter judgment on the general verdict for the plaintiff.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether jury's negative answer to special interrogatory (foreseeability to Ortberg) is irreconcilable with general verdict for plaintiff | The “no” answer is consistent with finding Ortberg breached standard of care; special interrogatory should not defeat general verdict because a negligent actor may not have foreseen the harm | The special interrogatory controls under 735 ILCS 5/2-1108; jury found suicide not reasonably foreseeable to Ortberg, so no proximate cause | The answers were not clearly and absolutely irreconcilable; court reversed and entered judgment for plaintiff on general verdict |
| Whether the special interrogatory was proper in form | Interrogatory was improper because it asked foreseeability from Ortberg’s subjective perspective rather than from a reasonable person or reasonable licensed social worker standard | Garcia and other authorities allow defendant-focused foreseeability interrogatories | Interrogatory was improper: it misstated legal standard (should test foreseeability by a reasonable person/worker), rendering it ambiguous and misleading |
| Whether proximate cause was established as a matter of law (alternate basis to affirm for defendants) | Expert testimony (social-work and psychiatry) supported that proper assessment/referral would likely have prevented suicide; proximate cause is a factual issue for jury | Evidence insufficient as a matter of law; plaintiff’s psychiatrist lacked ER/urgent-care foundation to opine that ER referral would have prevented death | Evidence did not overwhelmingly favor defendants; proximate cause was for jury; appellate court refused to grant JNOV and accepted plaintiff’s expert qualifications (defense failed to preserve objection) |
| Whether trial-court reliance on Garcia compels affirmance | Garcia approved a defendant-focused foreseeability interrogatory in a nursing-home suicide case | Garcia is binding precedent supporting defendant’s requested form | Appellate court distinguished Garcia (it did not address whether defendant-focused phrasing was proper) and declined to follow it on that issue |
Key Cases Cited
- Simmons v. Garces, 198 Ill. 2d 541 (1992) (special interrogatories control only when clearly and absolutely irreconcilable with general verdict; interpret special findings in light most favorable to general verdict)
- Lancaster v. Jeffrey Galion, Inc., 77 Ill. App. 3d 819 (1979) (general verdict and special interrogatory may be reconciled under a reasonable hypothesis; reversal where special finding did not necessarily conflict)
- Lee v. Chicago Transit Authority, 152 Ill. 2d 432 (1992) (legal cause/foreseeability inquiry: injury must be foreseeable to a reasonable person to establish proximate cause)
- City of Chicago v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp., 213 Ill. 2d 351 (2004) (foreseeability analysis for proximate cause focuses on whether injury is the type a reasonable person would expect as likely result)
- Holton v. Memorial Hospital, 176 Ill. 2d 95 (1997) (proximate-cause issues are fact questions for the jury; negligent treatment while in care can be proximate cause)
- Espinoza v. Elgin, Joliet & Eastern Ry. Co., 165 Ill. 2d 107 (1995) (differentiates duty (question of law) from breach and proximate cause (questions of fact) in negligence claims)