Steele v. Provena Hospitals
2013 IL App (3d) 110374
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2013Background
- Michelle Koenig died from disseminated varicella zoster infection; autopsy attributed cause to systemic failure from VZV.
- Steele, as special administrator, sued Dr. Moran (ER physician) and Echo/Provena Hospitals for malpractice and vicarious liability; claim against Moran’s employer as Moran’s agent.
- Trial evidence included lay testimony that Michelle’s rash looked like chickenpox; several medical experts testified on standard of care.
- Consent form signed by Michelle at St. Mary’s stated physicians are independent contractors and limited hospital responsibility; Steele claimed apparent agency of Moran.
- Jury awarded $1.5 million to Steele, Koenig, and Watts; Moran and Provena appealed; trial court evidentiary rulings were contested.
- Appellate court reversed Moran’s verdict and remanded for new trial; Provena’s petition for judgment notwithstanding the verdict was granted in part pending remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of lay rash testimony | Steele argues lay testimony helps establish care context. | Moran argues it is improper medical-diagnosis testimony by lay witnesses. | Reversible error; lay rash testimony deemed at least partly prejudicial and diagnostic. |
| Exclusion of subsequent treatment evidence | Evidence of February 20–21 treatment relevant to causation and breach. | Trial court properly barred such evidence under limits of relevance. | Trial court erred; admitting subsequent treatment evidence was relevant to proximate cause and standard of care. |
| Expert testimony on standard of care | Infectious disease expert Zar could testify on ER standard of care for VZV/chickenpox case. | Raising ER standard-of-care issue to Zar was improper due to qualifications and scope. | Court upheld admission as not abusing discretion; Zar qualified and helpful on issues of care. |
| Rule 213 discovery and cross-examination limits | Rule 213 disclosures allowed broader cross-examination and development of opinions. | Cross-examination exceeded disclosed scope and violated Rule 213(g). | Trial court erred in allowing improper cross-examination and undisclosed topics; remand for new trial. |
| Apparent agency and consent form effect | Consent form did not bind or defeat apparent agency; Steele could prove hospital liability. | Form shows Moran not an employee; relied upon and held out by hospital; defeats apparent agency. | Consent form insufficient to defeat holding out and reliance; Provena not liable absent agency findings; remand for new trial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gilbert v. Sycamore Municipal Hospital, 156 Ill. 2d 511 (1993) (apparent agency principles in hospital liability)
- York v. Rush-Presbyterian-St. Luke’s Medical Center, 222 Ill. 2d 147 (2006) (holding out and reliance in apparent agency analysis)
- Purtill v. Hess, 111 Ill. 2d 229 (1986) (foundational requirements for medical expert testimony)
- Sullivan v. Edward Hospital, 209 Ill. 2d 100 (2004) (standard of care admissibility and expert qualification)
- Black v. Wabash, St. Louis & Pacific Ry. Co., 111 Ill. 351 (1884) (competent adult bound by signed documents; reading not required)