Bailey v. Mercy Hosp. & Med. Ctr.
| Decision Date | 30 September 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. 1-18-2702,1-18-2702 |
| Citation | 166 N.E.3d 301,2020 IL App (1st) 182702,445 Ill.Dec. 272 |
| Parties | Jill M. BAILEY, Individually and as Independent Representative of the Estate of Jill J. Milton-Hampton, Deceased Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MERCY HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL CENTER, an Illinois Corporation; Scott A. Heinrich, M.D.; Brett M. Jones, M.D.; Amit Arwindekar, M.D.; Helene Connolly, M.D.; Tara Anderson ; and Emergency Medicine Physicians of Chicago, LLC, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Vivian Tarver-Varnado, of AMB Law Group, LLC, and Robert Allen Strelecky, both of Chicago, for appellant.
Patricia S. Kocour, Catherine Basque Weiler, and Elizabeth Bruer, of Swanson Martin & Bell, LLP, of Chicago, for appellees Mercy Hospital & Medical Center and Tara Anderson.
Michael T. Walsh and Nicholas J. Alsaka, of Kitch, Drutchas, Wagner, Valittuti & Sherbrook, of Chicago, for other appellees.
¶ 1 Plaintiff, Jill M. Bailey, independent administrator of the estate of Jill M. Milton-Hampton, deceased, appeals the jury's verdict that found against plaintiff and for defendants Mercy Hospital and Medical Center (Mercy); Scott A. Heinrich, M.D.; Brett M. Jones, M.D.; Amit Arwindekar, M.D.; Helene Connolly, M.D.; Tara Anderson, RN; and Emergency Medicine Physicians of Chicago, LLC (EMP).
¶ 2 On appeal, plaintiff contends the trial court deprived her of a right to a fair trial when it denied her requests to give Illinois Pattern Jury Instructions, Civil, No. 105.07.01 (hereinafter IPI Civil (No. 105.07.01), which is the instruction on informed consent, and IPI Civil No. 5.01, which is the instruction on missing evidence. She argues the trial court abused its discretion and denied her a fair trial when it denied her request to give a nonpattern jury instruction on the loss of chance doctrine. She claims she was denied a fair trial when the court permitted Dr. Arthur Reingold, who was unqualified, to testify and allowed defendant Mercy's expert, Dr. Gary Schaer, to testify about a demonstrative exhibit that was unsupported and misleading. Plaintiff lastly asserts that the jury's verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
¶ 3 The trial court erred when it refused to give IPI Civil No. 105.07.01 and a nonpattern jury instruction on the loss of chance doctrine. The trial court did not err when it refused to give IPI Civil No. 5.01, permitted defendants' expert, Dr. Arthur Reingold, to testify, and allowed defendants' expert to testify about a demonstrative exhibit.
¶ 5 This is a medical malpractice case involving Jill M. Milton-Hampton (Jill) who died on March 18, 2012, after she sought treatment in the emergency department at Mercy during the evenings of March 16, 2012, and March 17, 2012. Plaintiff filed a civil complaint against certain physicians and nurses who cared for Jill when she was in the emergency department at Mercy. Plaintiff asserted claims for medical negligence and wrongful death, alleging that defendants failed to timely diagnose and treat her for sepsis or toxic shock syndrome. Some physicians and nurses who were originally involved in the litigation were voluntarily dismissed before trial. Plaintiff proceeded at trial against Heinrich, Jones, Arwindekar, Connolly, Anderson, Mercy, and EMP. Plaintiff's theory against Mercy was that the physicians—Heinrich, Jones, Arwindekar, and Connolly—were apparent agents of Mercy and that one of the nurses involved in her care—Anderson—was an agent of Mercy. Plaintiff's theory against EMP was that the physicians were agents of EMP. The jury returned a verdict in favor of all defendants and against plaintiff.
¶ 7 Defendants Heinrich, Jones, Connolly, and Arwindekar were the physicians who cared for Jill in the emergency room. They were employees of EMP, which had a contract with Mercy to provide emergency medicine services. Anderson was an employee of Mercy and was Jill's nurse during Jill's second visit to the emergency room.
¶ 8 At trial, the parties disputed Jill's cause of death. Plaintiff's theory was that Jill died of toxic shock syndrome and sepsis caused by a retained tampon, which could have been treated with antibiotics. Defendants' theory was that Jill died of acute viral myocarditis
, which could not be treated with antibiotics. Each party presented experts supporting its respective theory.
¶ 9 Heinrich, Jones, Connolly, and Arwindekar testified about their roles in the case. Each physician testified that he or she complied with the standard of care. Each physician also testified that Jill did not have sepsis or toxic shock syndrome. The facts below about Jill's visits at Mercy are taken from the testimonies of the treaters who cared for Jill at Mercy.
¶ 11 In March 2012, when a patient arrived at the emergency department at Mercy, the patient would first inform the person at the registration desk of her chief complaint. If the complaint was anything other than chest pain, a triage nurse would evaluate the patient, which would include taking vitals and determining the patient's acuity level, or "ESI classification." The ESI classification system used a scale from one to five, with a level one being used for patients with the most urgent needs. The triage area was staffed by nurses. During certain times of the day, a "physician in triage" would work with the triage nurses to expedite the process. The physician in triage initiated certain tests and took care of the patients who had minor complaints. The physician in triage did not see every patient and did not diagnose patients. The physician in the main emergency department performed the comprehensive physical examination on the patient.
¶ 13 Jill, who was a 42-year-old woman, first arrived in the emergency department at Mercy at about 6:45 p.m. on March 16, 2012. She was evaluated by a triage nurse and complained of abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea. She had experienced the abdominal pain for the last four days, and she had recently recovered from experiencing flu-like symptoms, including sore throat, chills, and fevers. The triage nurse noted that Jill had tachycardia
, or an elevated heart rate, but did not have a fever and her respiratory rate was normal. The physician in triage ordered a comprehensive metabolic panel (CMP), a pregnancy test, and a urinalysis. After the initial assessment by the triage nurse, Jill waited in the waiting room. Around 11 p.m., Jill was sent back to the main emergency department, where she was seen by Heinrich.
¶ 14 Heinrich performed a physical evaluation on Jill, who complained of nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and abdominal pain. Jill did not have a fever, chest pain, or shortness of breath. Her heart rate was elevated at 124. The normal resting heart rate for a woman Jill's age was between 60 and 100. Her systolic blood pressure was 96. The normal range was 90 to 140. Her skin was warm and dry, which meant she was not perfusing. Jill had no neurological deficits, and there was nothing unusual with her face, scalp, neck, eyes, ear, nose, or throat.
¶ 15 The CMP results showed that Jill's glucose and liver function were normal. Her blood urea nitrogen
, glomerular filtration rate, and creatine, which assess kidney function, were also normal. Jill's sodium and chloride levels were a little low but were consistent with a patient who was dehydrated. Heinrich ordered a hemoglobin and hematocrit test to evaluate Jill's blood count and determine if she was anemic. The results showed that Jill's hemoglobin was low at 7.5L, which could be a result of chronic anemia, as she was currently menstruating and had a history of heavy periods. According to Mercy's parameters, a normal hemoglobin level for Jill would have been 12 to 15 mg/dl.
¶ 16 Heinrich ordered three bags of intravenous fluids to help with Jill's dehydration. He also ordered medicine for her nausea, epigastric discomfort, and pain. At about 3:40 a.m., Heinrich evaluated Jill and prepared a note to transfer her care to Jones. He indicated in his note that Jill still complained of nausea but was starting to feel better. He also noted that Jill's blood count was low, which was likely due to menstruation. At that time, Heinrich did not have a definitive diagnosis but believed Jill had gastroenteritis
, or a stomach flu most commonly caused by a virus. He saw a patient with gastroenteritis during every shift. His conclusion that Jill had gastroenteritis was based on his physical examination, the results of the CMP, Jill's symptoms, and the fact that she had started to feel better after receiving the fluids. Jill did not have a fever or rash, which, according to Heinrich, were cardinal signs of toxic shock syndrome. Heinrich did not think Jill had toxic shock syndrome that led to bacterial sepsis or shock.
¶ 17 At about 3:30 a.m. on March 17, 2012, Heinrich transferred Jill's care to Jones. During the transfer of care process, Heinrich and Jones discussed Jill's history, the tests that had been ordered, and the "running diagnosis" of gastroenteritis
. Jones reviewed Heinrich's notes, which indicated that Jill had responded to the fluids and medicine. When Jones took over Jill's care, she was receiving her third bag of fluids. Jones's plan was to continue the treatment to see how Jill responded. The urinalysis results, which returned when Jones was caring for Jill, were negative for a urinary tract infection and showed no signs of dehydration. Her respiratory rate was high at times, and her hemoglobin was low, which was consistent with chronic anemia. Her chloride was a little bit low, which was consistent with having symptoms of diarrhea and vomiting. After Jill received the fluids, her elevated heart rate improved, and she told Jones she felt better. Based on Jill's lab...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Avila v. Chi. Transit Auth.
...of the case if those theories are supported by the evidence and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom. Bailey v. Mercy Hospital & Medical Center , 2020 IL App (1st) 182702, ¶ 84, 445 Ill.Dec. 272, 166 N.E.3d 301. The trial court has discretion in deciding which instruction to give, and the ......
-
Bailey v. Mercy Hosp. & Med. Ctr.
...reversed the circuit court's judgment in part, and remanded for a new trial against certain defendants. 2020 IL App (1st) 182702, 445 Ill.Dec. 272, 166 N.E.3d 301. For the reasons that follow, we reverse in part the appellate court's judgment. We affirm the circuit court's judgment in its e......