Kotvan v. Kirk
Decision Date | 30 March 2001 |
Docket Number | No. 1-99-0046.,1-99-0046. |
Citation | 254 Ill.Dec. 633,747 N.E.2d 1045,321 Ill. App.3d 733 |
Parties | Millie KOTVAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Kent A. KIRK and Kirk Eye Center, S.C., Defendants-Appellees. |
Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Law Offices of Jordan B. Rifis, P.C., Chicago, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Donohue, Brown, Mathewson & Smith, Chicago (J. Kent Mathewson, Karen Kies DeGrand and Virginia L. Beach, of counsel), for Defendants-Appellees.
Plaintiff, Millie Kotvan, brought this action for medical negligence against defendants, Kent Kirk, an ophthalmologist, and Kirk Eye Center (KEC). Plaintiff alleged that Dr. Kirk failed to timely diagnose and treat an infection that plaintiff developed after cataract surgery. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants. The trial court denied plaintiff's posttrial motion.
On appeal, plaintiff contends that: (1) the jury's verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence; (2) the trial court erred by finding that the defense expert, Dr. Rubenstein, was qualified to testify regarding plaintiff's eye infection; (3) the trial court erred by barring testimony concerning plaintiff's blood tests as undisclosed opinions in violation of discovery Rule 213 (134 Ill.2d R. 213); (4) certain evidentiary rulings misled the jury and prejudiced the plaintiff's case; and (5) the trial court abused its discretion by questioning the venire before it was impaneled.
On May 11, 1993, around 8:30 a.m., Dr. Kirk performed cataract surgery on plaintiff's left eye, which involved the implantation of an intraocular lens. The surgery was performed at KEC. Before the operation, plaintiff signed a consent form explaining that cataract surgery may result in loss of vision, reduction of corneal clarity, infection and retinal detachment.
The following morning, May 12, 1993, around 8 a.m., Dr. Kirk saw plaintiff for her first postoperative examination. At this visit, plaintiff reported no pain, nausea or vomiting. Kirk examined plaintiff's eye with a slit lamp and checked her retina and blood vessels in the back of her eye. Plaintiff's visual acuity at that time measured 20/60, but her intraocular pressure (IOP) was 38, with 10 to 21 being the normal range. Kirk performed a paracentesis tap to lower the IOP. To do this, Kirk pressed a needle next to the cataract surgery incision on the cornea, releasing fluid out of the eye. Plaintiff's IOP was subsequently reduced to four.
After the follow-up exam, plaintiff vomited in the waiting room as she waited for the KEC van to take her home. Her sister, Nicholina Cantalupo, was with her. Plaintiff told a KEC technician, Kathleen Ernst (now known as Kathleen Ernst Zver), that she felt fine and left with her sister. Plaintiff vomited again in the van on the way home. Plaintiff's sister, Nicholina, called KEC several times throughout the day to report plaintiff's condition.
According to Nicholina, she reported repeated nausea, vomiting, pinching and burning, eye pain and ultimately loss of vision by 3 p.m. Plaintiff's son, Donald Kotvan, also testified that he told a KEC employee that plaintiff was experiencing eye pain and had lost vision in her eye. On the other hand, KEC technician Ms. Ernst only documented, in plaintiff's chart. Nurse Mary McLeod also took several calls concerning plaintiff and testified that she did not recall receiving complaints of any eye pain or loss of vision. Both Ms. Ernst and nurse McLeod testified that they informed Dr. Kirk after each call.
A KEC employee allegedly instructed Nicholina to contact plaintiff's family physician, Dr. Popper, to reduce the vomiting. Dr. Richard Mattis, an associate of Dr. Popper, prescribed an anti-emetic over the phone to stop her vomiting. Plaintiff continued to vomit despite the medication so Dr. Mattis instructed Nicholina to take plaintiff to the emergency room. Nicholina informed KEC that she was taking plaintiff to Gottlieb Hospital. Nurse McLeod testified that Dr. Kirk stated that he wanted to speak to the emergency room physician when plaintiff arrived at the hospital, and she contacted the charge nurse at Gottlieb Hospital and informed them of Dr. Kirk's request.
Plaintiff checked into Gottlieb Hospital's emergency room at 4:40 p.m. on May 12, 1993. Dr. Viglione saw plaintiff 10 minutes later and was aware that plaintiff had had eye surgery from a nurse's note in the chart. He examined plaintiff's left eye with a penlight and noted that it was red and the pupil was reactive. Dr. Viglione testified that neither plaintiff nor any of her family members told him that plaintiff could not see out of her left eye or that she had pain in that eye. Dr. Viglione diagnosed plaintiff with gastroenteritis and did not believe there was anything wrong with plaintiff's left eye. Dr. Viglione called Dr. Kirk around 5:10 p.m. and informed him of the results of his exam. Dr. Viglione then admitted plaintiff as an inpatient out of concern for her vomiting and possible dehydration. The next morning, on May 13 around 8 a.m., Dr. Kirk saw plaintiff in the hospital. At 8:30 a.m. Dr. Kirk examined plaintiff and noticed hypopyon, a layering of white blood cells in the eye, and corneal haze. Dr. Kirk diagnosed infectious endophthalmitis (IE) in her left eye. Dr. Kirk contacted Dr. Kenneth Resnick, a retinal specialist, sometime between 8:45 to 9 a.m. Dr. Resnick arranged for plaintiff's surgery. Around 11 a.m. he ordered a cardiology consult. Plaintiff's EKG was interpreted at 11:18 a.m. and showed signs of a possible previous heart attack. Plaintiff could not be cleared for surgery without approval of a cardiologist or internist. Dr. Popper, plaintiff's family physician, consulted with Dr. Resnick about plaintiff's EKG around 12:45 p.m. As a result, plaintiff was cleared for surgery. At 2:25 p.m. Dr. Resnick ordered a chest Xray. A report interpreting the film was dictated around 3:24 p.m. The report indicated that plaintiff's heart was borderline in size, with no demonstrable active pulmonary infiltrates or congestive changes.
Dr. Resnick operated on plaintiff's left eye shortly after 5 p.m. Six days later, plaintiff was discharged. She was then treated on an out-patient basis by Dr. Resnick, Dr. Joel Sugar and Dr. John Fournier, but her sight could not be saved. Plaintiff's doctors agree that her left eye will probably have to be enucleated.
At trial, Dr. Kirk testified that he is a board-certified ophthalmologist who performs approximately 500 cataract surgeries per year. Dr. Kirk stated that pressure in the eye is commonly elevated after cataract surgery because one of the substances used during surgery, viscoelastic, may block the outflow channel of the eye, temporarily elevating the IOP. Dr. Kirk explained that it was unlikely that a paracentesis tap to relieve IOP would cause bacteria to enter the eye because the physician inserts no instruments into the eye. Dr. Kirk testified that after the paracentesis tap, he found plaintiff's wound to be structurally intact and sealed. Dr. Kirk also examined plaintiff's eye with an indirect ophthalmoscope and did not notice any blood cells in the anterior chamber of her eye, an early symptom of IE.
Dr. Kirk further testified that he was aware that plaintiff vomited in his waiting room but did not reexamine her because he believed it was related to the paracentesis or elevated IOP. He stated that vomiting can ensue after an elevated IOP. Although plaintiff continued to vomit throughout the day, Dr. Kirk did not reexamine her because there were no reports of eye problems and Dr. Kirk believed plaintiff's condition was gastronomic and not eye-related. He stated that this belief was further confirmed by the emergency physician, Dr. Viglione, who never told Dr. Kirk that plaintiff was experiencing vision loss or eye pain. When Dr. Kirk examined plaintiff the next morning at 8:30 a.m. and found hypopyon and corneal haze, he diagnosed plaintiff with IE and contacted Dr. Resnick between 8:45 a.m. and 9 a.m. to perform surgery. Dr. Kirk also testified that it was the admitting or operating physician's role to oversee plaintiff's preparation for surgery, not his.
Next, plaintiff called three opinion witnesses, Dr. Fagman (retained expert), Dr. Fournier (treating physician) and Dr. Sugar (treating physician). Dr. Fagman, a board-certified ophthalmologist, testified that Dr. Kirk performed the paracentesis tap in a nonsterile manner and did not adequately check the wound after the procedure to insure that it was sealed. As a result, Fagman opined that bacteria entered the eye when the paracentesis was performed. Dr. Fagman also opined that Dr. Kirk deviated from the standard of care by failing to reexamine plaintiff after the vomiting occurred. Dr. Fagman believed that the vomiting may have caused plaintiff's wound from the paracentesis to open, thereby increasing the risk of infection. Further, Dr. Fagman testified that the continuous vomiting throughout the day was a symptom of IE.
Dr. Fagman stated that Dr. Kirk did not comply with the standard of care by relying upon Dr. Viglione's report, because Dr. Viglione, a nonophthalmologist, lacked qualifications or expertise in examining the eye. Dr. Fagman also opined that Dr. Kirk was negligent because he failed to ensure that plaintiff's surgery proceeded earlier than 5 p.m. on May 13. Dr. Fagman did concede, however, that circumstances may have required Dr. Resnick to wait before proceeding with surgery, including plaintiff's abnormal EKG and plaintiff's consumption of breakfast.
Dr. Fournier, plaintiff's retinal surgeon, agreed with Dr. Fagman that the paracentesis procedure caused bacteria to enter and infect plaintiff's eye. Dr. Fournier opined that vomiting is a symptom of IE and that plaintiff's streptococcus pneumonia and IE could be diagnosed...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
CETERA v. DIFILIPPO
...of witnesses and may bar an expert from testifying if the expert's testimony would be cumulative. Kotvan v. Kirk, 321 Ill.App.3d 733, 749, 254 Ill.Dec. 633, 747 N.E.2d 1045 (2001). The trial court abuses its discretion when it improperly excludes evidence so as to deprive a party of a fair ......
-
Bachman v. General Motors Corp.
...advising the court that they had no objection to the court's considering defendants' affidavits. See Kotvan v. Kirk, 321 Ill.App.3d 733, 750, 254 Ill.Dec. 633, 747 N.E.2d 1045, 1059 (2001) ("`Preservation of a question for review requires an appropriate objection in the court below [citatio......
-
Mele v. Howmedica, Inc.
...plaintiff's testimony is so incredible that the jury committed manifest error by relying on it. See Kotvan v. Kirk, 321 Ill.App.3d 733, 741, 254 Ill.Dec. 633, 747 N.E.2d 1045 (2001). Thus, the jurors could find that Dr. Sheinkop suggested a nonactionable cause for the pain in February 1992.......
-
Iaccino v. Anderson
...the standards of care against which the physician's conduct is measured by the use of expert testimony. Kotvan v. Kirk, 321 Ill.App.3d 733, 741, 254 Ill.Dec. 633, 747 N.E.2d 1045 (2001). The value of expert testimony depends upon the facts and reasons which form the basis of the expert's op......
-
Overview
...528 (2001). That discretion will only be considered as abused if trial court improperly deprives party of fair trial. Kotvan v. Kirk, 254 Ill.Dec. 633, 747 N.E.2d 1045, 321 Ill.App.3d 733 (2001); In re Robb, 622 N.W.2d 564 (Minn.App. 2001). Is It Admissible? O-16 [3] BY MOTION DURING TRIAL:......
-
Table of Cases
...Ins. Co. of Am., 144 F.2d 676 (10th Cir. 1944), §44.400 Kos v. State, 15 S.W.3d 633 (Tex.App. Dallas 2000), §9.506.1 Kotvan v. Kirk, 254 Ill.Dec. 633, 747 N.E.2d 1045, 321 Ill.App.3d 733 (2001), Overview Kovacev v. Ferreira Bros. Contracting, Inc. , 779 N.Y.S.2d 204, (N.Y.A.D. 1 Dep’t 2004)......
-
Overview
...528 (2001). That discretion will only be considered as abused if trial court improperly deprives party of fair trial. Kotvan v. Kirk, 254 Ill.Dec. 633, 747 N.E.2d 1045, 321 Ill.App.3d 733 (2001); In re Robb, 622 N.W.2d 564 (Minn.App. 2001). Do not be among the majority of attorneys who are ......
-
Table of Cases
...Ins. Co. of Am., 144 F.2d 676 (10th Cir. 1944), §44.400 Kos v. State, 15 S.W.3d 633 (Tex.App. Dallas 2000), §9.506.1 Kotvan v. Kirk, 254 Ill.Dec. 633, 747 N.E.2d 1045, 321 Ill.App.3d 733 (2001), Overview Kovacev v. Ferreira Bros. Contracting, Inc. , 779 N.Y.S.2d 204, (N.Y.A.D. 1 Dep’t 2004)......