Owens v. Stokoe
| Decision Date | 20 November 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 62789,62789 |
| Citation | 104 Ill.Dec. 694,503 N.E.2d 251,115 Ill.2d 177 |
| Parties | , 104 Ill.Dec. 694 Charles P. OWENS, Appellee, v. Rachel A. STOKOE, Ex'r, Appellant. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
Law Offices of Strodel, Kingery & Durree, Assoc., Peoria, for appellee, Charles P. Owens; James R. Carter, Christopher P. Ryan, of counsel.
Heyl, Royster, Voelker & Allen, Peoria, for appellant, Rachel A. Stokoe, Ex'r of the Estate of James S. Stokoe, Deceased; David R. Sinn, Karen L. Kendall, of counsel.
Charles P. Owens (Owens), the plaintiff, brought an action in the circuit court of Tazewell County for medical malpractice against Dr. James S. Stokoe (Stokoe), a dentist. Stokoe died prior to the trial and Rachel, his wife and the executrix of his estate, was substituted as the defendant.
A jury returned a general verdict for the plaintiff in the amount of $40,000 but found that 75% of the fault was attributable to the plaintiff, reducing the award to $10,000. After the trial court denied the plaintiff's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the issue of the plaintiff's contributory fault, or, in the alternative, for a new trial, the plaintiff appealed to the appellate court. That court reversedthe portion of the judgment which found the plaintiff contributorily negligent and affirmed the judgment in the amount of $40,000 (140 Ill.App.3d 355, 92 Ill.Dec. 726, 485 N.E.2d 537). We granted the defendant's petition for leave to appeal under our Rule 315(a) (103 Ill.2d R. 315(a)).
Stokoe began treating Owens in October of 1976 when Owens came to his office complaining of a painful tooth. At that time, Owens had not had any dental care for three years. Stokoe, in a deposition, stated that during this visit he examined Owens' teeth and found that some of them were decayed almost to the gums and that he had pyorrhea, a gum infection. This condition, Stokoe said, had been caused by neglect.
Between October of 1976 and May of 1978 Owens made approximately 10 visits to Stokoe's office. During this period, Stokoe extracted several teeth, filled others, and installed upper and lower plates. Although he treated Owens extensively during this period, he did not take X rays. Stokoe said that on at least two occasions he asked to take a full set of X rays but Owens refused. Owens denied at trial that Stokoe ever asked permission to take X rays. By September 1979, according to Stokoe's deposition, Owens' mouth was "full of infections and pyorrhea."
On November 25, 1980, Owens again visited Stokoe to have his teeth cleaned and examined, and for the first time, Stokoe took X rays. These revealed two lesions or abnormal growths on or in the lower left jaw bone. Stokoe stated that he also found, though this did not appear in the plaintiff's dental records, a bulging of the lingual plate, which plate was soft to the touch. (The lingual plate is the plate of bone between the tongue and the teeth.) This softness indicated to Stokoe that the bone had been destroyed.
Stokoe diagnosed these lesions as multiple cementomas, which he believed showed a potential for growth. He testified that without the benefit of prior X rays to use as a standard, however, he was unable to tell whether the lesions were growing, and if they were, whether they possibly would fracture Owens' jaw bone. Because of this uncertainty, Stokoe was of the opinion, he said, that it was necessary that the lesions be surgically removed.
On December 2, 1980, Stokoe showed and interpreted the X rays for the plaintiff and recommended surgery to remove the lesions. At this visit he said he explained to Owens that the surgery would involve a risk that the left interior alveolar nerve, a sensory nerve serving the lower left portion of the face, might be affected. He told the plaintiff that this could result in paraesthesia, or a lack of sensation, in that region of the jaw. A notation by Stokoe to this effect appeared inthe plaintiff's dental records for that date. The plaintiff, however, testified that Stokoe did not advise him of the risk of paraesthesia prior to surgery or tell of the availability of an alternative form of treatment. Owens further testified that had he been advised of the risks of surgery that he would not have had the surgery performed. Stokoe performed the surgery in his office on December 4, 1980.
After surgery, Owens did not recover sensation at the part of his mouth and face served by the left inferior alveolar nerve. On January 28, 1982, Owens, at the recommendation of Stokoe, consulted Dr. W. James Fitzpatrick in an effort to remedy the loss of sensation, but Dr. Fitzpatrick was unable to relieve the condition. It was Dr. Fitzpatrick's opinion at trial that due to the passage of time, the plaintiff's chances of regaining sensation in the affected area were remote.
Count I of Owens' complaint alleged that Stokoe, prior to performing surgery, failed to inform him of the risks accompanying surgery and that an alternative method of treatment was available. Count II complained that the defendant was negligent in performing a surgical procedure that was contraindicated and in recommending an unnecessary surgery.
Expert witnesses testified on behalf of both Owens and Stokoe. The plaintiff's experts, Dr. Jack Jordan and Dr. W. James Fitzpatrick, gave opinions that the lesions should not have been surgically removed. Both witnesses said that the recommended treatment of the type of lesions observed in the X rays was periodic examination to determine whether the lesions were growing. Dr. Jordan stated that lesions of the type involved are self-limiting, do not seriously weaken the jaw and are harmless. It was his opinion that the lesions had matured and would not have grown further. Dr. Theodore Century testified for the defense that, considering there was evidence of a history of infection in Owens' jaw, a bulging of the lingual plate, which had become soft to the touch, and no prior X rays to compare, he believed that surgery was a proper method of treatment. The expert witnesses agreed that paraesthesia is a recognized...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Williams v. Jader Fuel Co., Inc.
...negligence of a plaintiff that will be considered ... for the purpose of allocation of damages." Owens v. Stokoe, 115 Ill.2d 177, 183, 104 Ill.Dec. 694, 697, 503 N.E.2d 251, 254 (1986). Rather, " '[t]he plaintiff's negligence will not [reduce] recovery unless it is a proximate cause of his ......
-
Board of Trustees of Community College District No. 508 v. Lybrand
...that Illinois courts do not follow the interpretation of the Restatement comment we have made here. Yet, in Owens v. Stokoe, 115 Ill.2d 177, 104 Ill. Dec. 694, 503 N.E.2d 251 (1986), a dental malpractice case, this court clearly applied this reasoning. The trial court allowed the jury to co......
-
D.C. v. S.A.
...did not, however, result in the elimination of proximate cause as an element in a negligence action (see Owens v. Stokoe, 115 Ill.2d 177, 183, 104 Ill.Dec. 694, 503 N.E.2d 251 (1986); see also Leonardi, 168 Ill.2d at 93, 212 Ill.Dec. 968, 658 N.E.2d 450), and there can be more than one prox......
-
Walker v. Chi. Hous. Auth.
...factor in bringing about his harm and there is no rule restricting his responsibility for it.’ ” Owens v. Stokoe, 115 Ill.2d 177, 183, 104 Ill.Dec. 694, 503 N.E.2d 251 (1986).¶ 68 In Martin v. Chicago Housing Authority, 264 Ill.App.3d 1063, 201 Ill.Dec. 917, 637 N.E.2d 506 (1994), an elevat......