Willis v. Morales
169 N.E.3d 74
Ill. App. Ct.2020Background
- Alma Willis underwent combined breast and abdominal surgery on May 21, 2008 that was expected to last ~5 hours but lasted ~12 hours; she had marked postoperative arm swelling and subsequent persistent arm/hand pain.
- On May 25 Willis was readmitted with pulmonary embolisms; an EMG (June 17) showed median-nerve injury near the right elbow and bilateral carpal tunnel damage; she later had carpal tunnel release and ongoing deficits.
- Willis sued the surgeon, two anesthesiologists, and three nurse anesthetists (hospital later settled). Her complaint alleged the nerve injuries occurred during the May 21 surgery and do not occur absent negligence (res ipsa loquitur count plus specific-negligence counts).
- Before trial the court granted a defense motion in limine excluding all evidence and instructions related to res ipsa loquitur and barred Willis’s experts from testifying that the injury would not have occurred absent negligence; the jury returned a defense verdict.
- On appeal the majority held the exclusion of res ipsa evidence/instruction was erroneous because Willis produced sufficient circumstantial evidence (including expert testimony and records) to raise a jury question that the injury occurred during the surgery and would not ordinarily occur absent negligence; the judgment was reversed and remanded for a new trial. The dissent would have affirmed, finding alternative nondefendant causes (e.g., an IV/needlestick during the May 25 admission) defeated exclusive-control/causation required for res ipsa.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exclusion of res ipsa evidence/instruction | Willis argued she produced enough circumstantial and expert evidence to let a jury decide res ipsa: injury occurred during surgery and would not occur absent negligence | Defendants argued res ipsa inapplicable because alternative causes (e.g., IV/needlestick during May 25 hospitalization) existed and exclusive control was lacking; in limine they sought to bar the theory | Majority: Reversed—trial court erred; Willis presented sufficient evidence to submit res ipsa to the jury; remand for new trial. Dissent: Would affirm. |
| Refusal of missing-witness instruction (failure to call two defense experts) | Willis argued jurors could infer adverse testimony from defense not calling disclosed experts | Defendants treated decision not to call those experts as legitimate trial tactic; no inference appropriate | Held: Not separately resolved on the merits—court remanded for new trial and did not decide other issues (to be addressed at retrial). |
| Allowing defense expert to testify to an opinion not in deposition | Willis objected that defense expert’s trial testimony expanded beyond his deposition opinions | Defendants argued testimony was permissible and not prejudicial | Held: Not addressed substantively on appeal; remand for retrial so evidentiary rulings may be revisited. |
| Restricting plaintiff experts’ testimony (e.g., stills from surveillance video; causation opinions) | Willis argued the court improperly limited experts from testifying that injury would not occur absent negligence and from using video stills | Defendants relied on the in limine ruling and argued experts’ causation statements were speculative | Held: Majority found it erroneous to bar experts’ res ipsa causation testimony; other evidentiary restrictions were not finally decided on appeal and will be subject to retrial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Heastie v. Roberts, 226 Ill. 2d 515 (Ill. 2007) (explains elements of res ipsa loquitur and that applicability is a question of law)
- Kolakowski v. Voris, 83 Ill. 2d 388 (Ill. 1980) (plaintiff may rely on res ipsa when specific-negligence evidence does not conclusively establish cause)
- Dyback v. Weber, 114 Ill. 2d 232 (Ill. 1986) (plaintiff need only present evidence reasonably showing res ipsa elements to invoke the doctrine)
- Loizzo v. St. Francis Hosp., 121 Ill. App. 3d 172 (Ill. App. 1984) (res ipsa inapplicable when a nondefendant could reasonably have caused the injury)
- Imig v. Beck, 115 Ill. 2d 18 (Ill. 1986) (res ipsa is an evidentiary inference and applies only when facts admit the single inference of defendant negligence)