Stanphill v. Ortberg
91 N.E.3d 928
Ill. App. Ct.2018Background
- Keith Stanphill met with licensed clinical social worker Lori Ortberg (EAP counselor) on Sept. 30, 2005; he completed a questionnaire showing symptoms of depression and some self-harm thoughts, but Ortberg’s chart recorded he denied suicidal ideas and she diagnosed him with adjustment disorder with depressed mood and referred him to couples counseling.
- Ortberg did not perform a full mental-status/lethality assessment, did not hold Keith or contact family/EMS, and acknowledged that if she had determined he was suicidal she would have taken emergency steps.
- Nine days later (Oct. 9, 2005) Keith died by suicide (carbon monoxide intoxication); plaintiff (administrator/son) sued Ortberg and Rockford Memorial for wrongful death and survival.
- At trial plaintiff’s experts testified Ortberg breached the standard of care and that proper evaluation/referral would likely have prevented the suicide; defense experts testified Keith was not imminently suicidal and his suicide was not foreseeable to Ortberg on Sept. 30.
- Jury returned a general verdict for plaintiff and awarded $1,495,151, but answered a defense-requested special interrogatory: "Was it reasonably foreseeable to Lori Ortberg on Sept. 30, 2005 that Keith Stanphill would commit suicide on or before Oct. 9, 2005?" with "No." The trial court entered judgment for defendants based on that interrogatory.
- Plaintiff appealed; the appellate court reversed, holding the special interrogatory either was not irreconcilable with the general verdict or was improperly worded and therefore should not have controlled judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether jury's negative answer to special interrogatory was irreconcilable with general verdict | Special interrogatory tested an element already subsumed in negligence (breach/proximate cause) and jurors could reasonably find breach caused death while also concluding it was not foreseeable to Ortberg personally; answers are not clearly and absolutely irreconcilable | Special finding on foreseeability controls and required judgment for defendants under 735 ILCS 5/2-1108 | General verdict and special finding were not necessarily inconsistent; court reversed and directed entry of judgment on the general verdict for plaintiff |
| Whether the special interrogatory was in proper form | Interrogatory was improper because it asked foreseeability from Ortberg’s subjective perspective rather than whether the suicide was foreseeable to a reasonable person/professional; that made it ambiguous and misleading | Interrogatory was permissible (relying on Garcia) and properly asked the jury to decide foreseeability to the defendant | Interrogatory was not in proper form—should ask foreseeability to a reasonable person/reasonable licensed clinical social worker, not to named defendant; improper form confirmed reversal |
| Whether plaintiff proved proximate cause as a matter of law (alternative basis to affirm) | Plaintiff presented expert testimony tying Ortberg’s misdiagnosis and failure to refer to the death; proximate cause was a fact question for the jury | Defendants argued lack of appropriate expert (e.g., ER physician) and insufficient proof of causation | Court declined to enter judgment for defendants; evidence viewed favorably to plaintiff was sufficient to sustain jury verdict on proximate cause |
| Whether trial court erred in submitting the special interrogatory over plaintiff’s objection | Plaintiff objected to form and substance; special interrogatory introduced ambiguity and could impermissibly override general verdict | Defendants requested the interrogatory and relied on Garcia and other authority | Court found plaintiff’s objection preserved and that the trial court erred in submitting the interrogatory in that form |
Key Cases Cited
- Simmons v. Garces, 198 Ill. 2d 541 (Ill. 2002) (special interrogatory controls only when clearly and absolutely irreconcilable with general verdict)
- Lancaster v. Jeffrey Galion, Inc., 77 Ill. App. 3d 819 (Ill. App. Ct. 1979) (special interrogatory answer not necessarily inconsistent with general verdict where reasonable hypothesis reconciles them)
- Lee v. Chicago Transit Authority, 152 Ill. 2d 432 (Ill. 1992) (legal cause/foreseeability measured by whether a reasonable person would anticipate the harm)
- Espinoza v. Elgin, Joliet & Eastern Ry. Co., 165 Ill. 2d 107 (Ill. 1995) (duty is question of law; breach and proximate cause are fact questions for the jury)
- Holton v. Memorial Hospital, 176 Ill. 2d 95 (Ill. 1997) (proximate cause and negligence in medical settings are ordinarily questions for the jury)
- City of Chicago v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp., 213 Ill. 2d 351 (Ill. 2004) (foreseeability inquiry focuses on whether the injury is the type a reasonable person would see as a likely result)