*1 Ayala, of Michelle AYALA, Special the Estate Indiv. Adm’r JOYCE Defendants-Appellees. TARIQ al., et Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MURAD Division) (2nd 1 — 05—0511 No. First District September filed Opinion Robbins, Ltd., Lyndon, T. of Robbins & H. and Edward Elliot Robbins Lee, Chicago, appellant. Lee, Harry Harry Office of C. both of C. of Law Raimi, Fisher, Sullivan, Zachary M. all B. John E Michelle Garvey, Chicago, appellees. Bollinger, Ruberry & the court: JUSTICE SOUTH delivered Plaintiff, special administrator Joyce Ayala, individually, and Ayala, brought this medical daughter, of her Michelle estate wrong- alleged injury and seeking damages for the malpractice action death of Following ful Michelle. presentation case-in- chief, granted the trial court Murad, Tariq motions defendants M.D., Tariq Murad, Ltd., Barrington Ltd., Pathology, for a directed grounds verdict plaintiff prove failed to the proximate cause element of her claim. 8, 1998,
On Michelle Ayala, who 18 years old at the time, large had a surgically removed from her abdomen Dr. *2 Regis Shepherd Hospital Barrington, Weiss at Good Illinois. Tests performed by Murad, at the time Dr. a pathologist, indicated it was a noninvasive borderline ovarian Approximately later, tumor. 18 months diagnosed Michelle was a having stage as IV ovarian tumor with the having spread lungs cancer or metastasized to her and the of her bone 9, 2000, spine. Sеptember On pressure Michelle died of low blood complications other of metastatic ovarian cancer. ultimately Plaintiff filed malpractice Murad, a medical complaint against Dr. individually, Murad, agent as an for Tariq Ltd., and Barrington Pathology, (740 Ltd., (West Wrongful under the Death Act seq. ILCS et 180/0.01 1998)) (755 (West 1998)).1 and the Survival Act ILCS Plaintiff 5/27—6 alleged, alia, inter provide that Dr. Murad had failed to a proper pathological diagnosis of Michelle’s tumor which led complica resulting tions her death.
During trial, Weiss, jury Regis Dr. a gynecologic oncologist, testified that he first examined spring Michelle in the She had recently lost weight by a considerable аmount of did choice but not girth. family physician, Ferolo, lose abdominal Michelle’s Dr. referred discovering very large filling her to Dr. Weiss after mass her abdo- men, by very which was confirmed a CT scan. Michelle had a distended and, tell, abdomen as best Dr. Weiss could it extended her rib from bone, cage, pubic to her flanks, down and out into which constitute wall, sides the abdominal all space. filled the available He thought benign it was probably mucinous tumor due to its size and age. Michelle’s Dr. that larger tumor, Weiss testified the less likely malignant, malignancies it is to usually be are more symptomatic reaching a large before such size. Dr. scheduled Wеiss surgery to pos- remove the mass and informed Michelle that he would sibly operation something malignant need to do second if found. were 8, 1998,
During surgery April Dr. felt the Michelle’s Weiss tumor, surface of her which did not appear be attached September 11, 2003, plaintiff voluntarily complaint 1On dismissed against Regis Chicago January Gynecological Oncology, Weiss and S.C. On 13, 2005, plaintiffs complaint against Hospitals Corp. Heath and Advocate plaintiff. was dismissed settlement with it, meant it was intestine, which wall, anything behind abdominal was over growth, which benign. Due to the size of likely more suctioning ap- out decompress it pounds, chose to Weiss mass, weighed remaining which gallons liquid. The proximately six fluid two along and sent with was also removed pounds, about nine results, Dr. Weiss awaiting the pathologist. While samples to feel did not the abdomen and organs portions observed various any or see abnormalities. during surgery Murad, pathologist, telephoned borderline tumor, he saw some mucous-type and while
said it was a areas, any invasion. changes appear it did not focal If action. further then closed the and did take Weiss would diagnosed malignant, Dr. Weiss tumor had been Michelle’s abdomen, taken ad- of the washings have done various areas dis- omentum, node samples, lymph and done ditional removed final days surgery, Dr. received a section. several of the Weiss Within complete product Dr. Murad which was a written sampling provided. and fluid Dr. Murad concluded tissue malignant low growth Michelle’s was mucinous ovarian potential or a borderline tumor. Dr. Weiss shared the results told pathology report Michelle and her mother 1998 and tumor, a tumor was benign them “that while it was not a borderline *3 following the During not as worrisome as cancer.” the 14 months surgery, follow-up Dr. Weiss did four examinations and did not discover September 1999, he Dr. that any abnormalities. In was told Ferolo they bony tumor, Michelle found or and when was to have a femоral investigated, lungs. in her she also tumors he,
Dr. and pathologist Murad testified he is a board-certified Bahu, Raja perform pathology his Dr. services at Good partner, 8, 1998, Shepherd Hospital. April inspected On he Michelle’s tumor pathology operating after it sent lab from the room. macroscopic no He made Murad found obvious or visual invasion. also Mu- nine-pound section slides tumor. When Dr. four frozen microscope, only he rad looked at frozen sections under saw ovary as a borderline A borderline tumor of the is the same tumor. potential. dur- malignant tumor of low Dr. Murad contacted Weiss He ing surgery him the tumor was bоrderline. informed that tissue subsequently throughout nine-pound took several slices slides. On sample permanent resulted section which microscope provided he examined each the slides under a following diagnosis: which contained the two-page pathology malignant “right ovary, mucinous ovarian tumor low tube (borderline In the tumor), microscopic description.” see potential microscopic description, wrote, he “no invasion is identified in examined, the sections and there are areas in which lining is that single of a layer of mucinous secreting type columnar cells with basal nuclei.” He wrote “absent” in thе pertaining column to vascular inva- sion. Dr. Bahu also looked at agreed Michelle’s slides and that it was a borderline tumor.
Dr. Robert Mandal testified he primary was Michelle’s medical on- cologist September 1999 until her death. When Michelle became patient, stage his she had spread IV ovarian cancer had already which lungs spine. and the bone oncologist, As a medical chemotherapy Mandal treats cancer injectable and other orally opined administered modalities. He that Michelle’s tumor likely through most spread the blood from ovary. Five different regimens Michelle, chemotheraрy were tried on but none worked. Dr. stage Mandal testified that IV ovarian cancer which has metastasized bone, lung according to the Federation of International (FIGO) and Gynecologists standards, Obstetricians incurable, regardless chemotherapy of the used.
Plaintiff presented of two retained medical wit- nesses, Dr. Welch, William Welch and Dr. Donald Goldstein. Dr. gynecologic pathologist Brigham Boston, and Women’s Hospital Massachusetts, complete testified that reviewed set of slides Murad, prepared by including the frozen section slides. Dr. Welch surgeons rely heavily testified that pathologist reports, on what the espеcially pathologist something benign as to whether the refers malignant. The features that are found in a tumor are also extremely important oncologist for the making when decisions as to stage what the patient’s next will be for the He testified that care. borderline ovary generally “implies mucinous tumor of the epithelial lining cysts multicystic one of these tumors has proliferated degree top are piling up some of the cells may degree each other. And there be some cells. atypicality those They orderly don’t look nice and tumor benign well behaved like a would.”
Dr. Welch further testified that Michelle’s was “predomi- borderline,” tumor, within nantly but this borderline there “the development findings.” lymphovascular of more ominous invasion *4 placed portions category tumor into a different than borderline. is at all a in Dr. Welch testified “it not uncommon to have tumor in aspect you very benign you which one and then epithelium have proliferative atypical epithelium have a borderline and then in another tumor many area a focus of invasion or foci invasion.” Michelle’s invasion, just there was not a borderline tumor because once invade, and that was ability to expressing an the tumor cells were malignant is a biologicаl parameter. “If there very important features, other worrisome and some with lot invasion *** therapy try to chemotherapy or some other form clearly goes metastasizing.” Dr. Welch growing and stop this tumor *** into “gotten lymphatics into Michelle’s tumor believed agree with the vessel, would although everyone not the blood is vessel invasion [ed] consider blood interpretation [he] that what predominantly a tumor truly vessel invasion.” When blood controls features, the latter malignant borderline, but also includes this case of care in standard and final outcome. treatment which included diagnosis, the correct required pathologist to make the stroma of into mentioning the fact that there was invasion Dr. Murad deviated from standard tumor. Dr. Welch believed reporting and not them. seeing the of most concern by care areas as to he observed on extensive what provided Welch noted, particular, in created Murad and various slides component of the represented major one nodule on a slide invasive tumor, anyone might beyond what call microinvasion. which went April 9, pathology report final Welch Dr. Murad’s dated reviewed it it deviated from the standard of care because concluded stroma, did any lymphatics, not include mention of vascular inva- standard of sion. Dr. Welch also believed the deviated from the care there no found in because it indicated invasion required he standard of Finally, sections examined. testified the care carcinoma, in final adenocarcinoma, appear pathological diagnosis because there was of invasion. Welch clear-cut evidence ultimately behave as a would have assumed the tumor would as tumor. carcinoma and not a borderline Goldstein, of Dr. defendants filed motion Prior management, seeking testifying him limine bar chemotherapy if it had been treatment effеctiveness of and/or Defendants surgery April to Michelle after her administered argued requisite expertise did not have the that Dr. Goldstein a voir dire qualifications testimony. conducting offer such After in medi- hearing, expert the trial court found Dr. Goldstein was not an to what the course oncology cal and would not be allowed to might been Michelle and how she treatment would have done had she received treatment sooner. he in obstetrics
Dr. Goldstein then testified that is board certified oncology Brigham gynecologic gynecology specializes surgery. does He also works Hospital, primarily where he Woman’s Boston, where does Dana-Farber Cancer Institute *5 outpatient large care. A part testimony of his was about the FIGO staging system patients. for cancer He testified that all in a particular stage type, mostly would be considered the same academic if purposes, they they so were treated should similar have outcomes. Dr. Goldstein following stages, described the in relevant part, as they patients: relate to I stage ovarian cancer be would a ovaries; tumor localized stage IA would be localized to one ovary; stage ovaries; IB would stage involve both IC would be one or both ovaries invоlved with some evidence of tumor cells cavity; abdominal and stage IV would be if there was evidence of the disease outside the pathologist abdominal When cavity. a concludes that a tumor is malignant, staging which, should depending be done upon circumstances, washings, removing any entails tumors that appear structure, on any removing omentum, taking scrapings, lymph sampling judgment nodes. It is a surgeon’s part call on the stage whether to a depends borderline tumor of the upon ovaries and tumors, however, various factors. Most such borderline staged. are Dr. Goldstein stage tumor, testified that Michelle had a IA or IC tumor, likely opinion, most a IA on April 1998. His which he held degree certainty, within a reasonable of medical upon was based following explored very facts: Weiss the abdomen thoroughly when he removed the tumor and found any disease; no evidence of operation months after the when Michelle began symptoms to have done, her recurrent tumor and a scan CT was no evidence of any found; her was fluid abdomen inside a mucinous tumor gelatinous, very and if fluid gets cavity, into the it abdominal 1 ‘pseudomyxoma can a peritonei,” you cause condition called where gelatin-like development cavity, have a in the abdоminal and there was a no evidence such condition in case. Based upon Michelle’s cancer, patient diagnosed stage FIGO statistics for ovarian with IA survival, stage patient tumor has about 80% chance while a IC rate, stage has a 70% to 75% survival IV has less than a diagnosed 10% survival rate. Michelle When ovarian cancer in September it was behaving stage like a IV tumor because it was outside cavity lungs abdominal in the and the bone. completion case-in-chief,
At the defendants moved for plaintiff directed verdict because her had failed meet burden on of proximate issue cause. The trial court took the issue under advisement and instructed begin defendants to their case-in-chief. presented pathologists, After defendants of three includ- ing Young, the granted Dr. Robert trial defendants’ motion doing so, In was no directed verdict. the trial court concluded there degree certainty to a reasonable of medical that the effective- received after might Michelle have the treatment ness of no there was evidence further concluded lessened. The trial court untreated, would have cancer, if stage IA left that Michelle’s of time. stage a certain amount progressed IV cancer within no evidence which there was Finally, the trial court concluded given been which would Michelle would have indicated what treatment IV progressing stage her IA from later prevented stage cancer cancer, September death in which was the cause (1) for our consideration: Plaintiff raises the three issues by barring Goldstein’s whether the trial court abused its discretion efficacy of courses concerning the certain potential (2) case; if earlier this whether cancer treatment started *6 verdict; and a directed motion for by granting court erred defendants’ (3) by prohibiting plaintiff its discretion whether the trial court abused Young, Dr. Robert crоss-examining pathology expert, from defendants’ he if pathology report included in a may about information he have pathologist. had been Michelle’s its plaintiff’s first consider claim that the trial court abused
We Goldstein, from expert, medical by barring plaintiffs discretion treatment, of testifying management, to the effectiveness and/or any chemotherapy may been of treatment part Michelle’s surgery 1998. Defendants the assert properly the not a court barred because Goldstein was oncologist requisite experience medical and did the with not have support opinions. cancer treatmеnt his who, education, expert training, An of person witness is a because ordinary specialized knowledge beyond the experience, possesses App. understanding jury. of the v. 292 Ill. Hospital, Hubbard Sherman (1997). 148, cases, must be malpractice “[i]t 3d In medical 153 the of expert established that the a licensed member of school is proposes express [citation] medicine he an about which methods, he the expert the must show that is familiar with witness physicians, procedures, ordinarily and treatments observed other community.” or a similar physician’s community either the defendant Foster, Hess, 229, (1986); v. 157 Purtill v. 111 Ill. 2d 243 see also Gill (1993). is plaintiff’s “expert mediсal Ill. 316 Whether is he of the qualified testify dependent not on whether is a member defendant, but, rather, speciality whether subspeciality same knowledge his allegations negligence of matters within concern (1992). The trial O’Young, v. 154 Ill. 2d 43 observation.” Jones qualified to person has the discretion to determine whether determination not be disturbed testify expert, as medical and its will Gill, an 157 2d at absent abuse of discretion. Ill. 317.
598 Gill,
In the trial court plaintiffs expert, McAfee, barred the general board-certified surgeon, testifying defendant, that the radiologist, had deviated reading standard of care in various during films that were plaintiffs Gill, taken hospitalization. Ill. 2d аt 315. Dr. McAfee during testified that the course his of career surgeon, training as a he had and experience interpreting X rays and had instructed medical students the subject radiology as it Gill, relates to surgery. 2d at 315-16. He had also examined tens of X rays of thousands and was familiar standard care of a reasonably well-qualified Gill, 157 radiologist. Ill. 2d at 315-16. affirming decision, While the underlying found supreme court by limiting court abused its discretion testimony. Dr. McAfee’s Gill, 157 Ill. 2d witness, doctor, at as a licensed testify expert could as an in the area radiology, to the standard radiologists, though care of practicing radiologist even not a Gill, and lacked board certification. Ill. 2d 317. His lack of certification, board upon radiologists’ his occasional reliance X interpretations rays complicated cases, weight went opinion, Gill, his admissibility. Ill. 2d its at 317.
Similarly, in Brander, App. (2000), Silverstein v. 317 Ill. 3d 1000 plaintiff’s trial court found the medical expert, Singer, internist, unqualified physiatrist that the defendant violated the regard management standard care with plaintiff during hip his rehabilitation from a replacement. Silverstein, 317 Ill. 3d at 1003-04. We reversed trial court on the basis Singer that Dr. management had worked on the medical of more than they 100 of his while physical underwent rehabilitation fol *7 Silverstein, lowing hip replacement surgery. Ill. at App. 317 3d 1007. Singer testify We directed the trial court remand to allow Dr. to as to governing management the standards the medical of postoperative patients Silverstein, adequate expertise. because he demonstrated 317 App. Ill. 3d at 1008. (1997),
In Hospital, App. Hubbard v. Sherman 292 Ill. 3d 148 upon by defendants, relied the court plaintiff’s barred the Malachinski, proposed expert, surgeon, medical Dr. was not a who rendering any opinions regarding allegations that the defendant delayed plaintiffs appendectomy procedure diagnostic doctor the and tests, surgical performance. Hubbard, about actual or the defendant’s App. 292 appendicitis Ill. 3d at 152-53. Dr. Malachinski had dealt with patients surgeon, an had attending physician, only as but not as a and a completed general surgery one-month rotation as an intern in surgeries. Hubbard, App. 292 3d occasionally assisted in Ill. at limiting did in 153. We found the not abuse its discretion
599 qualified that he to on the basis Dr. Malachinski’s any or concerning surgeon’s performance the expert opinion render Hub surgical procedure. the possible scheduling testing delay Ill. at bard, App. 292 3d 154-55. (1991), Co., 3d App. 213 Ill. Upjohn
In Northern Trust Co. v. intra defendants, with an upon by plaintiff the was treated also relied Trust, drug. 213 Ill. injection abortion-inducing an Northern uterine dramati Thereafter, pressure the blood rose App. 3d at 395. nausea, experienced irregular pulse. an Northern cally,she suffered Trust, obstetrician instructed App. 213 Ill. 3d at 395. defendant room. monitoring closely the and left the patient nurse to continue later, Trust, plaintiff 213 Ill. 3d at A short time the App. Northern 395. Trust, injury. a brain Northern suffered cardiac arrest and sustained App. specialist emergency Ill. plaintiff 3d at 396. The tendered medicine, Matthews, expert against an in her suit the Dr. witness obstetrician, Trust, hospital, drug the manufacturer. Northern the App. Ill. at was not an obstetrician or 406. Matthews abortion, gynecologist, performed had never and had never used drug receiving at of a issue observed reactions drug. Trust, 213 abortion-inducing App. Northern Ill. 3d at 406-07. We competent concluded as to Matthews was not to applied standard of to be care the defendant obstetrician because experience unqualified his lack of actual made him what was know position. customary practice for someone in the defendant’s North Trust, ern Consequently, plaintiff 3d at we found the had failed present expert sufficient establish standard, standard of care the breach of that reversed Trust, judgment against the Northern 213 Ill. defendant obstetrician. App. 3d аt 407. hand,
Turning case record the fol- at establishes that lowing presented during hearing: the voir relevant evidence was dire gynecology Dr. Goldstein has been board certified obstetrics and oncologists part group gynecologic since 1967. He of six works Cancer Brigham Hospital and Women’s and the Dana-Farber three medical on- Institute Boston. Goldstein also works with during weekly conference to cologists with whom he collaborates status and cancer surrounding patient’s issues discuss various oncologist purposes therapy. While he to a medical refers managing chemotherapy making the decision as to whеther drugs, he also moni- give chemotherapy, including experimental patient’s response therapy. Goldstein testified tors drugs Taxol first-treatment carboplatin and have been the standard *8 years. He testified that he for ovarian cancer for about 10 further question would oncologist medical if sug- alternative course was gested patients, one his and the oncologist medical would have to explain why agent necessary. different Goldstein testified that an only time, alternative is chemotherapy used about 5% such as when a has unusually an adverse to reaction drugs, standard oncologist the medical proрose would alterna- However, tive drugs course. in those cases where standard do not used, work subsequent are chemotherapies Dr. Goldstein testified he is in decision-making process involved as to what should be done. he would not decision, While make the ultimate he testified it “joint would be a something decision” whether to use experimental or a second line of therapy.
Following hearing, the voir dire the trial court limited Dr. Gold- stein’s qualified give the basis that was not opinion on what the course treatment would have been for Michelle staged April if her cancer been in what the benefits and disadvantages might to a course of therapy have been. The trial court concluded familiar sufficiently Goldstein not with the decision-making process, oncologists and the methods medical use to administer, therapy select the course of his testimony. to allow trial court noted that there are administered, when therapy cases the standard is not way knowing that there would be no whether cases, this was one those and defendants opportunity would lack the to cross-examine the doctor who determines the modality. Silverstein, in
Like Gill and we find the trial court abused its by limiting testimony. discretion Dr. Goldstein’s As a licensed doctor experience management in with extensive treatment of cancer patients, qualified testify concerning Dr. Goldstein was as an expert potential course if efficacy of treatment Michelle’s cancer had diagnosed been weekly sooner. Goldstein testified that he collaborates on hospital’s oncologists;
basis medical is familiar with patients; the standard course of treatment for ovarian cancer moni patients therapies; questions tors the cancer reaction his medi if oncologist therapy suggested cal an unusual course of for one of patients; joint deciding his be a in would decision maker whеther something experimental, should therapy, or a second line be patient. administered to a cancer Unlike the medical witnesses Trust, Hubbard and Northern Dr. Goldstein demonstrated extensive experience management in the and treatment of cancer him potential order to allow about Michelle’s treatment. oncology Goldstein’s lack of board certification medical and his reli oncologists determining a upon patient’s ance medical ultimate weight opinion, admissibility. treatment of his to its went Gill, Ill. 2d See at 317. its court abused the trial upon
Based our determination *9 must determine testimony, we by limiting Dr. Goldstein’s discretion the in for a trial. Errors grounds constitutes new the error whether are trial the errors may a new where exclusion of evidence warrant App. Ill. Corp., Canada 276 v. National prejudicial. serious and Israel (1995). of the seeking has burden 454, party 463 The reversal 3d Israel, 3d establishing App. 276 Ill. at prejudice. must malpractice, plaintiff
“To on claim of medical succeed (1) ac the defendant’s applicable the standard of care to demonstrate: (2) tions; appropriate the standard the defendant’s deviation from (3) proximately care; standard of care and the deviation the 203, injuries.” App. v. Ill. 3d Ong, the McDaniel 311 caused (1999). be malpractice in a case must 208 Proximate cause medical medical degree by expert established to reasonable contingent, specula certainty, and the causal connection must be tive, University Chicago merely possible. Hospitals, Townsend v. (2000). 406, Ill. 318 3d 413 agree presented by the the
We trial that evidence law, plaintiff jury insufficient, the was as matter of show in a alleged Dr. Murad’s deviation from the standard of care resulted delay starting due decreased chance survival to a in Michelle’s Co., 494, treatment. Pedrick v. & R.R. Peoria Eastern (a (1967) evidence, only appropriate directed verdict is where all оf the when viewed in the most favorable so aspect opponent, overwhelmingly contrary favors that no based the movant verdict stand). upon evidence could ever establishes, however, provided that Dr. record Goldstein plaintiff’s in Court Rule opinion Supreme contained
(210 213) discovery Ill. 2d R. disclosures: summary, my opinion degree
“In medical it is to a reasonable diagnose certainty and invasive that Murad’s failure to in lympho-vascular April, mucinous cancer and invasion providing chemotherapy and delay resulted in an 18+ month treatment, diagnostic potentially therapeutic other substan- and cancer, tially Ayala’s surviving her reduced reduced Ms. chance once it expectancy, of treatment life lessened effectiveness initiated, expenses, medical finally was and resulted substantial pain suffering year prior in the decedent’sdeath.” voir subsequent This with Dr. Goldstein’s consistent during hearing on motion dire elicited defendants’ limine. At the standard hearing, Goldstein testified last 10 primary approximately for for treatment ovarian cancer carboplatin years Taxol; cycles the normal for administra- tion of carboplatin and initially Taxol would be six treatments intervals; three-week such treatment constituted the standard of сare gynecologic oncologists medical chemotherapy who administer cancer; ovarian and that Michelle’s cancer should have been diagnosed and she should have received such treatments of carbopla- tin Taxol. Dr. later believed, Goldstein testified at that he degree certainty, within reasonable of medical that Michelle most likely stage LA had a which had a FIGO survival 80%, September 1999, rate and that by her cancer had reached stage I\( which had a FIGO survival rate of less than 10%. Dr. Gold- stein, however, could only testify in general terms about the FIGO staging system allowed, as he upon was not based court’s rul- ing limine, defendants’ motion in to what the course of been, treatment for Michelle might would have she how sooner, done she received treatment and to connect the FIGO reasons, statistics to Michelle’s For foregoing plaintiff case. we find *10 has met her limiting burden that the trial court’s error in Dr. Gold- testimony prejudicial precluded stein’s it her cause her showing alleged that Dr. Murad’s deviation from standard of proximately injuries. Accordingly, care caused her remand we new trial. we turn
Finally, plaintiffs claim that the trial court abused cross-examination by limiting its discretion of defense witness Young, Robert who testified after the court toоk defendants’ mo tion for directed verdict under advisement. We will consider plaintiff’s for purposes admissibility claim the challenged of testimony on remand.
The record establishes that when the trial court ruled on various objections deposition pathology made evidence of defendant’s expert, Young, during it struck the testimony provided plaintiffs of cross-examination the witness:
“Q. You would mentioned cancer stroma invasion Ayala’s gynecological written in the to Michelle oncologist, you? wouldn’t
A. Yes.” personal The trial struck because it court this related Young ap- did not practices of Dr. concern deviation plicable standard care. falls of the trial admission evidence within discretion
court
will not be reversed
review absent
abuse
discretion.
(2005).
Kennedy,
App.
343,
explained
355
Brax v.
363 Ill.
3d
We
(1994):
Joseph Hospital,
App.
v. St.
259 Ill.
3d 730
Glassman
(1978),]
As in Glassman and care, standard of but constituted evidence applicable concern recognize pathologist. what he done Michelle’s While we would have disagreed Mazzone in Gallina Appellate the Fourth District Court with Watson, (2004), see reason we no v. this is holdings Appellate District Court on reconsider the First limiting find discretion sue and the trial court did not abuse its Young. cross-examination of Accordingly, judgment County circuit court Cook reversed remanded with direction a new consistent with opinion. this
Reversed and remanded with directions.
HALL, J., concurs. WOLFSON, specially concurring:
PRESIDING JUSTICE I agree trial court committed error it limited reversible when warranted, I testimony, agree Dr. Goldstein’s and I trial is but new agree majority’s position Young’s do not on Dr. stricken testimony concerning whether he would have mentioned cancer Michelle Ayala’s gynecological oncologist. stroma invasion to *11 expert It is true that an be asked about his conduct cannot own from or order to establish a defendant doctor’s deviation adherence Ill. Hospital, v. Joseph the standard of care. See Glassman St. (1994). question App. 3d 730 But asked point that was not Young. of Dr. trying persuasive Counsel was to attack the value credibility. permis his Young’s opinions. It was attack on That (2004). Watson, oppos If sible. See Gallina v. ing jury testimony, limiting instruction counsel fears misuse of the jury proper can be used confine the to a consideration of evidence.