Beals v. Huffman
| Decision Date | 22 July 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 4-85-0800,4-85-0800 |
| Citation | 99 Ill.Dec. 706,496 N.E.2d 281,146 Ill.App.3d 30 |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
| Parties | , 99 Ill.Dec. 706 Clifford C. BEALS and Goldie Beals, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Stanley R. HUFFMAN, M.D., and Sarah Bush Lincoln Health System, Inc., an Illinois Not-For-Profit Corporation, Defendants-Appellees. |
Glenn A. Braden, Braden Law Offices, Neoga, James R. Harvey, James F. Jarrett, Effingham, for plaintiffs-appellants.
Craig J. Causeman, Thomas, Mamer & Haughey, Champaign, for Sarah Bush Lincoln Health System, Inc.
Richard F. Record, Jr., Craig & Craig, Mattoon, for Huffman.
Plaintiffs brought an action in the circuit court of Coles County alleging that defendants committed medical malpractice. The court entered summary judgment in favor of defendants. Plaintiffs appeal. The facts follow.
On December 23, 1983, plaintiffs Clifford Beals (Beals) and his wife, Goldie Beals, filed a four-count complaint in the circuit court of Coles County against defendants, Dr. Stanley Huffman and Sarah Bush Lincoln Health System, Inc., also known as Area E-7 Hospital Association (Hospital). Count I alleged that Dr. Huffman performed a surgical operation on Beals' esophagus in a negligent and unskillful manner causing injury to Beals. Count I specifically alleged, among other things, that Dr. Huffman carelessly and negligently punctured Beals' stomach wall during the course of the operation causing the contents of Beals' stomach to spill out into his body cavity. Count II alleged that the Hospital, by and through the acts of its authorized agents and employees, committed negligent and unskillful acts in the treatment of Beals causing injury to him. The specific acts of negligence alleged to have been committed by the Hospital were identical to the specific acts of negligence alleged to have been committed by Dr. Huffman. Count III incorporated the allegations of count I and alleged further that Dr. Huffman's negligence caused Goldie Beals to suffer the loss of society of her husband. Count IV incorporated the allegations of count II and alleged further that the Hospital's negligence caused Goldie Beals to suffer the loss of society of her husband.
During the following months, defendants filed answers to the complaint. Several matters pertaining to discovery were also filed.
On June 18, 1984, Dr. Huffman filed a motion for summary judgment on counts I and III of the complaint. The affidavit of Dr. Huffman was attached to the motion. The affidavit stated in full as follows:
"I, STANLEY R. HUFFMAN, M.D., being first duly sworn, state under oath and depose that I am a duly licensed and actively practicing medical practitioner in the state of Illinois; that I am familiar on a first hand basis with the standards for physicians practicing in the Coles County area in December, 1981, dealing with complaints of the type described for Plaintiff, CLIFFORD C. BEALS, in the Complaint on file herein; that at all times in 1981 and 1982 at the time of professional contacts by me with CLIFFORD C. BEALS that I complied with said standard and that no act or omission on my part caused or contributed to cause any condition of ill being in the body of CLIFFORD C. BEALS."
On July 6, 1984, the Hospital filed a motion for summary judgment on counts II and IV of the complaint.
On October 22, 1984, the court entered an order granting each defendant's motion for summary judgment.
Also on October 22, 1984, Dr. Huffman filed his own sworn statement. After describing his academic and professional background, he made the following statements concerning his treatment of Beals.
Dr. Huffman stated that he first treated Beals on December 29, 1981, after Beals had been referred to him by his family physician. Beals had been experiencing difficulties in swallowing. On December 30, 1981, Dr. Huffman performed an upper gastrointestinal endoscopic examination on Beals and determined that a stricture existed in Beals' esophagus. He diagnosed Beals' condition as reflexes esophagitis and columnar line esophagitis. He told Beals that the best treatment would be to open the stricture at the end of the esophagus. Dr. Huffman explained to Beals and his wife that an esophageal dilation involved the passage of progressively larger dilators through the esophagus. He informed Beals and his wife that the risks involved in an esophageal dilation included perforation, infection, and adverse reaction to drugs involved.
On January 2, 1982, Dr. Huffman performed an esophageal dilation on Beals. He passed progressively larger dilators (rubber tubes) through Beals' esophagus. Beals was conscious and alert during the entire procedure. After the completion of the procedure, Beals had a barium swallow. The barium swallow revealed that Beals had sustained a perforation at the far end of the esophagus during the esophageal dilation. Dr. Neuberger performed surgery to repair the perforation.
Dr. Huffman continued his treatment of Beals through January 12, 1982.
Dr. Huffman stated that he was familiar with the standards of care required of physicians performing esophageal dilations in Coles County and that he did not deviate from those standards of care. He denied each of the specific allegations of negligence contained in the complaint. He concluded the statement by stating that he provided proper care and treatment to Beals.
On October 25, 1984, plaintiffs filed a motion to vacate the order entering summary judgment in favor of defendants and a motion to reconsider that order. Plaintiffs argued that Dr. Huffman's affidavit consisted only of legal conclusions insufficient to entitle defendants to summary judgment. The court entered an order granting plaintiffs' motions and vacating its order of October 22, 1984.
On November 2, 1984, a hearing was held. No record of that hearing was made.
On January 23, 1985, Dr. Huffman filed a renewed motion for summary judgment on counts I and III of the complaint. The sworn statement described earlier and plaintiffs' answer to interrogatory No. 24 were attached to the motion. Plaintiffs' answer to interrogatory No. 24 stated that plaintiffs knew of no medical professionals holding opinions critical of Dr. Huffman's treatment of Beals.
On the same date the Hospital filed a renewed motion for summary judgment on counts II and IV of the complaint. The same documents attached to Dr. Huffman's motion were attached to the Hospital's motion.
Beals filed his own affidavit in opposition to Dr. Huffman's motion for summary judgment stating that the facts alleged in the complaint were true. Plaintiffs also filed their own sworn statement describing Beals' treatment and their injuries.
On February 7, 1985, plaintiffs filed a notice of expert witness indicating that they had retained Dr. Ralph Gieselman as an expert witness. In opposition to defendants' motions for summary judgment, plaintiffs filed the affidavit of Dr. Gieselman. That affidavit stated in full as follows:
"I, [Ralph V. Gieselman, M.D.], being first duly sworn upon oath depose and state as follows:
1. That I am a physician licensed to practice medicine in the State of Missouri and I am Board Certified in Internal Medicine and Gastroenterology.
2. That I have reviewed the hospital records, x-rays and the sworn statements of Dr. Stanley Huffman and Clifford and Goldie Beals.
3. That said records and x-rays clearly demonstrate a perforation of the gastrointestinal tract of Clifford Beals.
4. That with proper care, perforation secondary to dilation of the esophagus in the area perforated on Clifford Beals is uncommon and occurs in less than one percent (1%) of cases so treated.
5. That most physicians undertaking the procedure of dilation of the esophagus would request that the patient have nothing to eat or drink after midnight preceding the procedure to lessen the risk of regurgitation and possible aspiration during the procedure.
6. That the fact that there were two perforations evident on followup x-ray studies would indicate that there was not prudent passage of the dilators.
7. That the said records do not indicate that Clifford Beals was informed of the possible complications of endoscopy and/or dilation.
8. That I would, if sworn as a witness, testify competently to the above."
On March 8, 1985, Dr. Huffman filed a motion to strike the affidavit of Dr. Gieselman. The motion alleged that Dr. Gieselman's affidavit did not comply with the requirements of Supreme Court Rule 191 (87 Ill.2d R. 191), that the affidavit did not state a prima facie case of negligence against Dr. Huffman, and that paragraphs three and six of the affidavit were inconsistent.
On March 14, 1985, the Hospital filed a motion to strike the affidavit of Dr. Gieselman. The motion adopted the grounds raised in Dr. Huffman's motion and alleged further that the affidavit did not state that Dr. Gieselman is familiar with the standards of care required of physicians and hospitals in the relevant geographic location and that defendants deviated from those standards of care.
On April 3, 1985, the Hospital filed an addendum to its motion for summary judgment arguing that the deposition of Dr. Huffman reveals a lack of negligence on the part of the Hospital and that plaintiffs' answers to certain interrogatories indicated that plaintiffs had not been able to secure an expert witness who could testify to the negligence of the defendants. A transcript of Dr. Huffman's deposition was attached to the addendum. In that deposition Dr. Huffman further explained his background and treatment of Beals. Dr. Huffman stated that although he was on the staff at the Hospital, he was not an employee of the Hospital. He stated that the equipment he used during his treatment of Beals was owned by the Hospital and in proper working order. He stated that an endoscopy nurse was present during the endoscopic examination and that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Robidoux v. Oliphant
...long as the affiant were competent to testify at trial. In support of her position, plaintiff relies upon Beals v. Huffman, 146 Ill.App.3d 30, 99 Ill.Dec. 706, 496 N.E.2d 281 (1986), which held that the failure to attach to an affidavit the papers on which an affiant relies is a technical v......
-
King v. Petefish, 4-88-0705
...party is free and clear from doubt. (Purtill, 111 Ill.2d at 240, 95 Ill.Dec. at 309, 489 N.E.2d at 871; Beals v. Huffman (1986), 146 Ill.App.3d 30, 99 Ill.Dec. 706, 496 N.E.2d 281; Handley v. Unarco Industries, Inc. (1984), 124 Ill.App.3d 56, 79 Ill.Dec. 457, 463 N.E.2d 1011.) A genuine iss......
-
Loos v. American Energy Savers, Inc.
...judgment are not contradicted by another affidavit, such facts are admitted and must be taken as true. Beals v. Huffman (1986), 146 Ill.App.3d 30, 99 Ill.Dec. 706, 496 N.E.2d 281. To recover under a strict liability theory, plaintiff must prove (1) his injury resulted from a condition of th......
-
Kennedy v. Bobbie & Clyde's, Inc., 1-90-1294
...another version of the relevant events, thus creating a genuine issue as to which version is true. (Beals v. Huffman (1986), 146 Ill.App.3d 30, 99 Ill.Dec. 706, 496 N.E.2d 281.) We find that plaintiff has successfully met that burden here, and has established factual issues sufficient to wi......