Russo v. Corey Steel Co.
| Decision Date | 28 December 2018 |
| Docket Number | No. 1-18-0467,1-18-0467 |
| Citation | 125 N.E.3d 1036,430 Ill.Dec. 18,2018 IL App (1st) 180467 |
| Parties | Frank RUSSO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COREY STEEL COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Thomas A. Kelliher, of Horwitz, Horwitz & Associates, Ltd., of Chicago, for appellant.
John J. Piegore and Brian Sanchez, of Sanchez Daniels & Hoffman LLP, of Chicago, for appellee.
¶ 1 Plaintiff, Frank Russo, filed a complaint against defendant, Corey Steel Company, to recover damages for injuries he sustained when a crane struck a lift in which plaintiff was working at defendant's plant. Defendant admitted liability, and the matter proceeded to a trial before a jury solely on the issue of damages. Following trial, the jury awarded plaintiff a total of $ 9.9 million in damages. Defendant retained additional counsel, and as a result, the trial judge who presided over the trial recused himself from the posttrial proceedings. Defendant filed a posttrial motion for a new trial on several grounds. The posttrial judge granted defendant's motion for a new trial based solely on defendant's argument the trial judge erroneously allowed one of plaintiff's experts to offer an opinion on plaintiff's need for one future surgery. The posttrial judge denied defendant's posttrial motion on the other grounds raised in the motion. Plaintiff appeals, arguing the posttrial judge should not have reversed the trial judge's ruling on the admissibility of the expert's opinion about the future surgery.
¶ 2 For the following reasons, we reverse.
¶ 4 We initially discuss only those portions of the proceedings below necessary to understand the posttrial judge's order granting defendant a new trial and the resolution of plaintiff's appeal of that order. Additional facts necessary to resolve any other issues will be discussed in conjunction with our resolution of those issues.
¶ 5 In July 2013, plaintiff was working as an electrician at defendant's steel beam manufacturing site when a trolley crane used to move steel beams struck the lift plaintiff was using to reach overhead light fixtures. Plaintiff testified he was using a man-lift. The lift has a cage, which plaintiff estimated to be 24 to 30 inches deep and approximately 48 inches wide, containing a control panel. Defendant's employee was operating the crane when a portion of the crane came into contact with a portion of the lift. Plaintiff testified that as a result of the impact he received injuries to his finger, elbow, lower back, hip and shoulder.
¶ 6 Dr. Jeffrey Coe testified as a witness for plaintiff. Dr. Coe is licensed to practice medicine in all its branches. In addition to his M.D., he has a Ph.D. in occupational medicine. Dr. Coe testified occupational medicine largely deals with assessment and rehabilitation to get people back to work. He stated he deals with specialists in various areas of medicine to try to get basic information. He works with orthopedic surgeons on an almost daily basis. Dr. Coe looks at orthopedic injuries and classifies them by type and severity regularly, "basically daily in [his] practice." Dr. Coe testified that a big part of his work, on a daily basis, is looking at injuries and telling his patient what type of pain and/or symptoms they may experience in the future.
Occupational medicine involves training in many different areas of the body, "particularly areas that are prone to injury; so things like orthopedic system, neurological systems, the lungs." He also teaches occupational medicine to other doctors and health professionals. Dr. Coe later testified that he does not do surgeries himself, but he sends patients to surgeons then he gets the patients back after surgery. Later, on redirect examination, Dr. Coe testified he teaches medical students about injuries to the shoulders, back, and hip.
¶ 7 Dr. Coe testified that plaintiff's right hip was examined a week to 10 days after the accident. At that first test, plaintiff had some minor arthritic changes to his hip. Dr. Coe testified at that time there was The mild arthritis
would not cause hip pain. Dr. Coe learned of some prior injuries plaintiff suffered. Dr. Coe testified that after plaintiff's prior injuries plaintiff "went back to full work activity as an electrician, at something that's been described as a very heavy physical demand level." Plaintiff had hip surgery in July 2014. Dr. Coe read an operative report for plaintiff's hip. As a result of the accident, plaintiff sustained a labral tear. Dr. Coe opined to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that plaintiff's right hip was injured from the accident. Dr. Coe examined plaintiff in March 2016. At that time, plaintiff told Dr. Coe he was still having hip pain, which plaintiff described as a constant aching pain. Plaintiff had reduced range of motion in his hip in two of three planes of motion. Dr. Coe testified plaintiff took a "functional capacity examination" in the beginning of 2015 that concluded plaintiff could return to work at a medium physical demand level with some restrictions. Plaintiff reported pain in his hip while completing the test. Dr. Coe testified to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that the accident in July 2013 "was the cause of the condition of [plaintiff's] right shoulder, right hip, and lower back" as Dr. Coe found them when he examined plaintiff.
¶ 8 Dr. Coe was asked if he had an opinion, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, as to whether plaintiff will need future hip surgery. Dr. Coe testified that he did, and defendant objected that an adequate foundation had not been laid. The trial judge instructed plaintiff to lay a foundation, whereupon plaintiff asked the following questions, and Dr. Coe gave the following answers:
"Q. Have you reviewed records from Dr. Shah, from Dr. Rubinstein, from physical therapy regarding the progression of this hip with post-traumatic arthritis
after the crane hit the JLG? Just have you reviewed them?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. And do you, in the course of your practice with employers, employees, or patients, render opinions from time to time regularly about whether someone will need a surgery?
A. Yes.
Q. And even hip surgeries?
A. Yes."
Defendant continued to object to the foundation for Dr. Coe's answer to the question of whether plaintiff will need future hip surgery. In a sidebar outside the presence of the jury and the witness, defendant told the trial judge that in the medical records Dr. Coe reviewed, there was no mention or recommendation by any doctor that gave an opinion that plaintiff needed a surgery. Plaintiff responded that Dr. Coe gave the opinion about future surgery in his own report. Plaintiff read the relevant portion of Dr. Coe's report, which states: "In addition, at right hip surgery
, Mr. Russo was found to have chondromalacia of the acetabular labrum. This finding represents a significant risk for accelerated breakdown of the right hip joint and would ultimately require right hip replacement at some point in the future." (Internal quotation marks omitted.)
¶ 9 After plaintiff discussed what Dr. Coe said in his report, the trial judge turned to defendant, who responded as follows:
Defendant explained that plaintiff's treating orthopedic doctor, Dr. Shah, could not relate the condition in plaintiff's hip to the accident. The trial judge clarified with defendant that Dr. Shah did not have the opinion regarding surgery and that plaintiff was trying to elicit it from Dr. Coe, whereupon the following exchange occurred:
Defendant agreed the opinion was disclosed and restated that his "argument is, in terms of his [ (Dr. Coe's) ] background and his review of the medical records, there's nothing in the medical records to support his opinion." The trial judge responded, "that might be subject to some cross." Defendant stated he was just preserving his objection for the record. The trial judge overruled the objection.
¶ 10 When proceedings before the jury resumed, Dr. Coe testified it was his opinion to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that plaintiff needs "additional treatment that would include another hip surgery
, and that that accident, as I learned of it, was a factor causing the need for additional treatment, including surgery." When asked what type of hip surgery, Dr. Coe responded: (Emphases added.) Dr. Coe testified those discussions had ranged from arthroscopic surgery to replacing his hip.
¶ 11 On cross-examination Dr. Coe testified that all of the opinions in his report were based on reviewing plaint...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- People v. Jamison
-
Grauer v. Clare Oaks
...at issue. An objection to evidence based upon a specific ground is a waiver of objection on all grounds not specified. Russo v. Corey Steel Co. , 2018 IL App (1st) 180467, ¶ 40, 430 Ill.Dec. 18, 125 N.E.3d 1036. Thus, by failing to object on the grounds that Pignatiello should not be allowe......
-
Dean v. Wexford Health Sources
...Ill.2d 39 (1992)(plaintiff's physician expert need not practice in the same specialty as defendant physicians); Russo v. Corey Steel Co., 125 N.E.3d 1036 (1st Dist.)(2018)(physician was qualified to testify as to likelihood of needing future hip surgery even though physician was not orthope......
-
50-State Survey of State Court Decisions Supporting Expert-Related Judicial Gatekeeping
...rigor that characterizes the practice of an expert in the relevant field.” Id. at 864 (citation omitted). See Russo v. Corey Steel Co., 125 N.E.3d 1036, 1051 (Ill. App. 2018) (“courts act as ‘the gatekeeper’ allowing through only reliable and relevant evidence for consideration by the jury,......