Holton v. Memorial Hosp.

Citation679 N.E.2d 1202,176 Ill.2d 95
Decision Date17 April 1997
Docket NumberNo. 79957,79957
Parties, 223 Ill.Dec. 429, 65 USLW 2686 Patricia HOLTON et al., Appellees, v. MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, Appellant.
CourtSupreme Court of Illinois

Hugh C. Griffin, Lord, Bissell & Brook, Chicago, Edward S. Bott, Jr., Thompson Coburn, Belleville, for Memorial Hosp.

Bruce N. Cook, Cook, Shevlin, Ysursa, Bauer & Bartholomew, Belleville, for Patricia Holton.

Thaddeus J. Nodzenski, IL Hospital & Health Systems Assn., Naperville, for Illinois Hospital & Health Systems Association.

JUSTICE McMORROW delivered the opinion of the court:

In this appeal we are asked to resolve whether application of the "loss of chance" doctrine in medical malpractice cases lessens the plaintiff's burden of proving proximate cause. This question has caused conflicting opinions among the Illinois appellate court panels. The loss of chance concept refers to the harm resulting to a patient when negligent medical treatment is alleged to have damaged or decreased the patient's chance of survival or recovery, or to have subjected the patient to an increased risk of harm.

Defendant, Memorial Hospital, requests this court to reverse the judgment entered upon the jury's verdict in favor of plaintiffs, Patricia and Frank Holton. Defendant argues that plaintiffs failed to establish that any acts or omissions of defendant's staff proximately caused plaintiffs' injuries. Alternatively, defendant contends that if the judgment is not reversed outright it must be reversed and a new trial ordered because defendant was prejudiced by conduct of plaintiffs' attorney and by the failure of the trial court to maintain impartiality. In addition, defendant challenges certain jury instructions, and also argues that it is entitled to a setoff in the amount of Mrs. Holton's past medical expenses which were reimbursed by insurance.

We allowed defendant's petition for leave to appeal. 155 Ill.2d R. 315. For the reasons that follow, we reverse the judgment of the appellate court and remand for new trial.

Background

In 1991, Patricia Holton and her husband Frank filed suit in the circuit court of St. Clair County against Memorial Hospital, Radiological Associates, Limited, and William G. Doubek, M.D., seeking damages for Patricia Holton's personal injuries and for Frank Holton's loss of consortium, which allegedly resulted from the defendants' negligence. Subsequently, plaintiffs settled their claims against William Doubek, Radiological Associates, and three other defendants named in a companion case. The trial court found that the $2,950,000 settlement was made in good faith and subsequently dismissed Doubek and Radiological Associates from the case at bar, leaving Memorial Hospital as the sole remaining defendant.

Testimony at trial revealed that Patricia Holton began to suffer severe back pain in late November or early December 1990. Her primary care physician, Dr. Doubek, ordered an X ray and a bone scan. These procedures indicated that the patient suffered from a degenerative process or compression fracture to a vertebra in her thoracic spine. Dr. Doubek scheduled Mrs. Holton to undergo a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) on January 4, 1991, the earliest available date for nonemergencies. He also told her to go to the emergency room if her pain worsened.

At approximately 9:30 p.m. on December 26, 1990, Mrs. Holton went to the emergency room of Memorial Hospital in Belleville, Illinois, complaining of numbness below the waist and a tingling sensation in her left leg. Dr. Mark Jergens, an emergency room physician, examined Mrs. Holton. He found evidence of a low fever and an elevated white blood count, which indicated the presence of an infection. At this time, according to the trial testimony of Dr. Jergens, Mrs. Holton had not lost any motor skills. The doctor ordered a blood culture and a CAT scan. On the medical records Dr. Jergens noted that a thoracic epidural abscess was a possible explanation for Mrs. Holton's symptoms. An epidural abscess is a collection of pus in the epidural area adjacent to the membrane which covers the spinal cord. Because emergency room physicians at the hospital did not have admitting privileges, Dr. Jergens called Mrs. Holton's primary care physicians to order her admission to Memorial Hospital.

Dr. Doubek examined Mrs. Holton early on the morning of December 27, 1990, and discovered that she had tingling, numbness, and weakness in her lower extremities. He was aware that her symptoms were consistent with either a bone infection called osteomyelitis or a tumor in her spine. Dr. Doubek ordered a neurological consultation.

Dr. Murphy, a neurosurgeon, examined Mrs. Holton in the late afternoon of December 27, 1990. She complained of numbness in her abdomen and legs but could still move her extremities. The CAT scan confirmed the existence of a compression fracture. The radiologist who interpreted the CAT scan was of the opinion that Mrs. Holton's pain was caused by a cancerous tumor.

Mrs. Holton testified that during the day of December 27, 1990, she noticed increasing difficulty in moving her left leg. She informed her attending nurses of this condition. However, the nurses' notes state only that the patient did not experience any significant change in her condition during the day. Between 6 and 7 p.m. on December 27, 1990, Mrs. Holton walked to the bathroom unassisted. After a few moments she attempted to rise and return to her bed. However, she could not move her legs or stand up and noticed a particular problem with numbness in her left leg. She rang the bell for help. Two nurses aides helped her into a wheelchair and from there, into her bed. Although she remarked when the nurses aides helped her from the toilet that her legs "didn't want to work," neither aide reported this incident to a supervisor, a nurse, or a doctor.

Registered nurse Barbara Ford cared for Mrs. Holton during the shift between 11 p.m. on December 27, 1990, and 7 a.m. on December 28, 1990. At some time between 1 a.m. and 5 a.m. on December 28, Nurse Ford determined that Mrs. Holton was having difficulties moving her left leg, but she did not believe that this was a significant change of condition.

After the next change in nursing shifts, between 8 and 9 a.m. on December 28, Mrs. Holton complained of numbness from the waist down and an inability to move her legs except for very slight movement in her right foot. She also lost bowel and bladder control. The nurse then on duty, Susan Schindler, informed Dr. Doubek and the neurosurgeon on call of these developments. Dr. Doubek came immediately and confirmed that Mrs. Holton had suffered a complete loss of motor control below the waist. Dr. Sprich, the neurosurgeon on call for Dr. Murphy, ordered tests to determine where the pressure on the spinal cord was located.

Dr. Doubek testified at trial that at the time of his diagnosis he was operating under the assumption that Mrs. Holton had suffered a sudden onset of paralysis because he had not been informed otherwise by the hospital staff or the charts and records. Accordingly, he initially thought it likely that her condition was caused by a tumor-caused infarct of the blood supply to the spinal cord, which would be consistent with sudden and complete loss of motor function. Defendant's nursing staff did not tell Dr. Doubek that Mrs. Holton's numbness and other symptoms of sensory deficits had been progressing over several hours to a state of motor impairment or partial paralysis. According to the neurological evidence adduced at trial, this escalation from tingling and numbness to paresis, or partial loss of motor function, indicates spinal cord compression caused by osteomyelitis (infection of the bone). Osteomyelitis can cause either an inflammation or an abscess that puts pressure on the spine, resulting in the progression of paralysis. Because Dr. Doubek was unaware that Mrs. Holton's apparently sudden paralysis had been preceded by a more gradual onset of declining motor function, Dr. Doubek determined that the most likely cause of plaintiff's condition was a cancerous tumor, requiring radiation.

Similarly, Dr. Sprich, the neurosurgeon on call for Dr. Murphy, testified that he would have come to the hospital immediately if he had been informed that Mrs. Holton was beginning to have trouble walking and moving her legs. By the time she lost bowel and bladder function, according to Dr. Sprich, her condition was irreversible. He further testified that patients suffering from neurological conditions whose symptoms are consistent with an epidural abscess can usually be beneficially treated because there is sufficient time to confirm the diagnosis and perform surgery to ease the pressure on the spinal cord. Dr. Sprich testified that if cord compression caused by an epidural abscess is diagnosed within 24 hours of the occurrence of paresis, patients often have "an excellent neurological recovery" and, if caught at an early enough point in the paresis, such patients will be able to "move their legs."

Dr. Doubek and Dr. Sprich also explained why they agreed that the apparently sudden onset of Mrs. Holton's paralysis supported the diagnosis of cancerous tumor rather than osteomyelitis. Osteomyelitis is a rare occurrence in the absence of a prior surgical intervention or trauma to the spinal cord, and Mrs. Holton did not have such a history. Also, statistical probabilities favored the existence of cancerous tumor under the perceived suddenness of the paralysis, especially where, as here, there was no involvement of the disc area of the spine. Consequently, the doctors who diagnosed and treated Mrs. Holton concluded that the cause of her condition was a cancerous tumor and proceeded to treat her based upon that mistaken assumption.

On January 17, 1991, three weeks after her loss of motor function, Mrs. Holton's family transferred her to another hospital because she was not improving. At that...

To continue reading

Request your trial
144 cases
  • Murillo v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • December 1, 2020
    ......Ill. Valley Cmty. Hosp. , 358 Ill.Dec. 1, 964 N.E.2d 670, 672 (Ill. App. Ct. 2012). "[T]he existence of a legal duty is ... Holton v. Mem'l Hosp. , 176 Ill.2d 95, 223 Ill.Dec. 429, 679 N.E.2d 1202, 1209 (1997). Yet, this ......
  • Matsuyama v. Birnbaum
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • July 23, 2008
    ......Parrott, 175 Vt. 375, 833 A.2d 843, 847-849 (2003); Fennell v. Southern Maryland Hosp. Ctr., Inc., 320 Md. 776, 789-784, 580 A.2d 206 (1990). While these objections deserve serious ...597, 688 P.2d 605 (1984); Ferrell v. Rosenbaum, 691 A.2d 641 (D.C.1997); Holton v. Memorial Hosp., 176 Ill.2d 95, 223 Ill.Dec. 429, 679 N.E.2d 1202 (1997); Cahoon v. Cummings ......
  • Miranda v. Cnty. of Lake
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • August 10, 2018
    ...harm was a diminished chance of survival. See Murrey v. United States , 73 F.3d 1448, 1453–54 (7th Cir. 1996) ; Holton v. Mem'l Hosp. , 176 Ill. 2d 95, 119, 223 Ill.Dec. 429, 679 N.E.2d 1202 (1997) (recognizing the lost chance doctrine in Illinois). While expert testimony could be used as "......
  • Ford-Sholebo v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • September 3, 2013
    ...has lessened the effectiveness of the treatment or increased the risk of an unfavorable outcome to the plaintiff.” Holton v. Mem'l Hosp., 176 Ill.2d 95, 223 Ill.Dec. 429, 679 N.E.2d 1202, 1209 (1997); Scardina v. Nam, 333 Ill.App.3d 260, 266 Ill.Dec. 454, 775 N.E.2d 16, 24 (1st Dist.2002) (......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 firm's commentaries
15 books & journal articles
  • CONTRACT REMEDIES NEED NOT UNDERCOMPENSATE ASPIRING PARENTS WHEN CRYOPRESERVED REPRODUCTIVE MATERIAL IS LOST OR DESTROYED: RECOVERY OF CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES FOR EMOTIONAL DISTURBANCE WHEN BREACH OF CONTRACT RESULTS IN THE LOST OPPORTUNITY TO BECOME PREGNANT WITH ONE'S OWN BIOLOGICAL CHILD.
    • United States
    • Journal of Law and Health Vol. 35 No. 1, September 2021
    • September 22, 2021
    ...Harrison, 838 P.3d 759 (Nev. 2016) (citing Greco v. United States, 893 P.2d 345, 348-49 (Nev. 1995)); see also Holton v. Memorial Hosp., 679 N.E.2d 1202, 1206 (Ill. 1997); McDaniel v. Ong, 724 N.E.2d 38, 43 (Ill. Ct. App. 1999). Courts have acknowledged that the loss of chance doctrine is i......
  • Procedures for Objections & Motions
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Illinois Objections
    • May 1, 2013
    ...be irrelevant. Netto v. Goldenberg , 266 Ill App 3d 174, 640 NE2d 948 (1994), overruled on other grounds , Holton v. Memorial Hospital , 176 Ill 2d 95, 679 NE2d 1202 (1997) (plaintiff waived his objection to testimony that became irrelevant during course of trial by failing to move to strik......
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Illinois Pretrial Practice. Volume 2 - 2014 Contents
    • August 12, 2014
    ...§12:103 Holston v. Sisters of St. Francis , 165 Ill2d 150, 650 NE2d 985, 209 Ill Dec 12 (1995), §8:193 Holton v. Memorial Hospital , 176 Ill2d 95, 223 Ill Dec 429 (1997), §32:261 Holton v. Memorial Hospital , 176 Ill2d 95, 679 NE2d 1202, 223 Ill Dec 429 (1997), §7:111 Holtz v. Crown, 357 Il......
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Illinois Objections
    • May 1, 2013
    ...1:300 Holland v. Schwan’s Home Service Inc. , 2013 Ill App (5th) 110560, ___ Ill App 3d ___ (2013), §6:70 Holton v. Memorial Hospital , 176 Ill 2d 95, 679 NE2d 1202 (1997), §§1:340, 20:60 Holton v. Memorial Hospital , 274 Ill App 3d 868, 655 NE2d 29 (1995), rev’d on other grounds , 176 Ill ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT