The Private Bank v. Silver Cross Hospital and Medical Centers
98 N.E.3d 381
Ill. App. Ct.2018Background
- Raymond Reynolds III developed a tension pneumothorax after an ICU chest X‑ray overnight; the radiology service’s electronic timestamps show the film was read and the radiologist phoned the ICU around 3:55–3:57 a.m.; a code blue was called at 4:10 a.m. when Reynolds arrested.
- ICU nurse Michelle Alling’s nursing notes (prepared hours later) estimated earlier times and recorded that the ER was paged at 3:55 a.m.; telephone and radiology electronic logs contradicted those estimates.
- Dr. Anthony Murino was the lone ER physician on duty; hospital policy required ER physicians to ensure ER patients’ safety before leaving to treat inpatients, and EMS (his employer) allegedly instructed him not to leave the ER unless a code blue was called.
- Plaintiffs alleged Murino delayed leaving the ER after being paged and that the delay (and EMS’s policy) caused Reynolds’s catastrophic brain injury; plaintiffs’ expert said Murino should have left “immediately” but conceded he could not fix when Murino was notified.
- At trial, the court dismissed Lessner’s loss‑of‑consortium and loss‑of‑chance‑to‑marry claims pretrial; after plaintiffs rested the court granted a directed verdict for Murino and EMS for lack of evidence on when Murino was notified and whether a breach occurred.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether directed verdict was improper | Circumstantial evidence (Alling’s notes, triage, short ER→ICU distance, expert hypotheticals, EMS policy) allowed a jury to infer Murino was told ~3:55 a.m. and unreasonably delayed until 4:10 a.m. | No proof who in ICU called ER, who in ER got the call, or when Murino was informed; expert conceded no basis to say Murino delayed — jury verdict would be pure speculation. | Directed verdict affirmed: plaintiffs failed burden of production on breach and causation; inference chain too speculative. |
| Admissibility of EMS malpractice‑insurance evidence | Evidence EMS told Murino he lacked coverage for non‑code‑blue inpatient care would impeach Murino’s credibility and explain incentive to delay. | Insurance evidence is prejudicial and generally inadmissible; trial court already allowed evidence of policy/practice without mentioning insurance. | Exclusion affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion; risk of prejudice outweighed probative value and plaintiff could still challenge policy/practice. |
| Validity of Lessner’s loss‑of‑consortium claim (unmarried partner) | Long‑term fiancée with imminent wedding should be allowed consortium and loss‑of‑chance‑to‑marry claims. | Illinois law does not recognize consortium for unmarried partners; change must come from legislature or supreme court. | Dismissal affirmed: existing Illinois precedent/statute bars common‑law/unmarried‑partner consortium claims; court declines to create loss‑of‑chance‑to‑marry cause. |
| Whether expert hypothetical testimony sufficed without foundation | Hypothetical based on assumed facts supported by record justified expert opinion that delay breached standard. | Hypotheticals lacked evidentiary foundation (no proof who/when informed Murino); expert disclaimed certainty. | Held that expert testimony was not probative absent evidence supporting the factual assumptions; inadmissible for proving breach. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pedrick v. Peoria & Eastern R.R. Co., 37 Ill. 2d 494 (explains standard for directed verdict/judgment n.o.v.)
- Maple v. Gustafson, 151 Ill. 2d 445 (directed verdict review and inferences drawn in favor of non‑movant)
- Purtill v. Hess, 111 Ill. 2d 229 (expert medical testimony required to establish standard of care except in obvious cases)
- Sullivan v. Edward Hospital, 209 Ill. 2d 100 (elements of medical malpractice and expert requirement)
- Leonardi v. Loyola University of Chicago, 168 Ill. 2d 83 (limits on admissibility of expert hypothetical questions and requirement that assumptions be supported by evidence)
- Blumenthal v. Brewer, 2016 IL 118781 (Illinois supreme court on invalidity of common‑law marriage and related policy)
- Rosochacki, 41 Ill. 2d 483 (discusses weighing of weak evidence in light of entire record)