Schuchman v. Stackable, 5-88-0562
Decision Date | 09 May 1990 |
Docket Number | No. 5-88-0562,5-88-0562 |
Parties | , 144 Ill.Dec. 493 Arnold SCHUCHMAN, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. W.R. STACKABLE, M.D., Defendant-Appellee. |
Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Alexandra de Saint PHalle, Londrigan, Potter & Randle, P.C., Springfield, for plaintiff-appellant.
Jonathan Ries, Shepherd, Sandberg & Phoenix, P.C., St. Louis, for defendant-appellee.
The plaintiff, Arnold Schuchman, Jr., brought suit against the defendant, W.R. Stackable, M.D., for damages alleged to have been caused by the defendant's surgical treatment of him after an injury. Following a jury trial, judgment was entered in favor of the defendant, and this appeal followed. Plaintiff presents 14 issues for review. He contends that the trial court erred in failing to grant a judgment n.o.v. or a new trial "with regard to the defendant's inexperience and consequent damage to the plaintiff," he raises several issues concerning the trial court's giving of or refusal to give numerous jury instructions, and he presents a number of issues related to evidentiary and other matters. We turn first to plaintiff's contention concerning the trial court's failure to grant his motion for judgment n.o.v. or a new trial.
At trial the evidence showed that on August 17, 1984, while working as a logger, the plaintiff was injured when the upper part of a tree fell a distance of approximately 60 feet, striking his shoulder and the back of his neck. As a result, the plaintiff suffered a "burst" fracture of his second lumbar vertebra, which splintered or burst into several pieces with some of its fragments being retropulsed into his spinal canal, obliterating it in part and exerting pressure upon the contents of the canal. Immediately after injury, the plaintiff was referred to the care of the defendant, a board-certified orthopedic surgeon, at St. Mary's Hospital in Centralia, Illinois. On August 31, 1984, defendant performed lumbar laminectomy upon him, intending to insert Harrington rods and to perform spinal fusion during the procedure in order to stabilize plaintiff's back but finding, according to defendant, that he could not continue the operation long enough to do so because of excessive bleeding. On September 6, 1984, while the defendant was out of town, one of the doctors caring for him in defendant's absence, namely, Dr. R. Chandra, since deceased, had him transferred to Barnes Hospital in St. Louis, Missouri, where on September 8, 1984, Dr. William Strecker inserted Harrington rods and performed posterior spinal fusion. Later, on September 18, 1984, Dr. Strecker removed a retropulsed fragment from the spinal canal and performed an anterior fusion. In January of 1986 Dr. Strecker removed the Harrington rods, which provided stability to the spine until the fusion was solid. The plaintiff, who now walks using forearm crutches, has been unable to return to his occupation as a logger or to any work involving physical labor.
Concerning the defendant's intention to undertake the placement of Harrington rods in the plaintiff, when the defendant had never performed such a procedure, the witness expressed the following opinion:
"This is such a very demanding procedure with so many ramifications in the use of the instrumentation that it would be absolutely impossible for an individual who had not even seen a procedure in many years to go ahead and attempt to do one on such a complex patient as Mr. Schuchman was."
The witness indicated that he had reviewed the plaintiff's records made upon his arrival at Barnes Hospital from St. Mary's Hospital and expressed his opinion with regard to plaintiff's neurological status upon arrival at Barnes Hospital as follows:
The witness described the significance of such a shift in the vertebral bodies at the level of L1-L2:
He stated that by performing laminectomy upon the plaintiff the defendant further destabilized plaintiff's spine and caused the upper part of his spine to shift about a half an inch onto the lower part, thereby "definitely caus[ing] nerve damage in this man as was substantiated by the records that I reviewed from Barnes' Hospital."
As to whether defendant's treatment of plaintiff contributed to "the neurological residuals" exhibited by plaintiff, the witness expressed this opinion:
He indicated that plaintiff's neurological impairment had increased as a result of defendant's treatment and that "therefore, his residual impairment is probably greater."
As to whether plaintiff had experienced increased hospitalization and pain as a result of defendant's conduct, the witness testified:
Asked on direct examination "the typical length of a hospitalization for a patient who has suffered injuries similar to those Arnold Schuchman demonstrated on August 17th, 1984, who were given appropriate care?" the witness answered, "The last four of these that I did this year, the people went home in a month or less."
On cross-examination the following...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bergman v. Kelsey
... ... Maple, 151 Ill.2d at 452-53, 177 Ill.Dec. 438, 603 N.E.2d 508; see also Schuchman v. Stackable, 198 Ill.App.3d 209, 222, 144 Ill.Dec. 493, 555 N.E.2d 1012 (1990) (the jury is ... ...
-
Individually v. Moore
... ... People v. Anderson, 113 Ill.2d 1, 12, 99 Ill.Dec. 104, 495 N.E.2d 485 (1986); Schuchman v. Stackable, 198 Ill.App.3d 209, 230, 144 Ill.Dec. 493, 555 N.E.2d 1012 (1990); Mielke v ... ...
-
McDonnell v. McPartlin
... ... 1, 623 N.E.2d 246 (1993) (condition of the fetus in the womb); Schuchman v. Stackable, 198 Ill.App.3d 209, 225, 144 Ill.Dec. 493, 555 N.E.2d 1012 (1990) (falling tree ... ...
-
Kochan v. Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corp., OWENS-CORNING
... ... Defendant argues that the doctor's testimony was inadmissible under Schuchman v. Stackable (1990), 198 Ill.App.3d 209, 144 Ill.Dec. 493, 555 N.E.2d 1012, appeal denied (1990), ... ...
-
Published writings
...even then, the statements from such writings may be read into evidence but may not be received as exhibits. Schuchman v. Stackable , 198 Ill.App.3d 209, 144 Ill.Dec. 493, 555 N.E.2d 1012 (1990); Forstall v. Daigrepont , 551 So.2d 653 (La. 1989); Hickok v. G.D. Searle & Co ., 496 F.2d 444 (1......
-
Published Writings
...even then, the statements from such writings may be read into evidence but may not be received as exhibits. Schuchman v. Stackable , 198 Ill.App.3d 209, 144 Ill.Dec. 493, 555 N.E.2d 1012 (1990); Forstall v. Daigrepont , 551 So.2d 653 (La. 1989); Hickok v. G.D. Searle & Co ., 496 F.2d 444 (1......
-
Published Writings
...even then, the statements from such writings may be read into evidence but may not be received as exhibits. Schuchman v. Stackable , 198 Ill.App.3d 209, 144 Ill.Dec. 493, 555 N.E.2d 1012 (1990); Forstall v. Daigrepont , 551 So.2d 653 (La. 1989); Hickok v. G.D. Searle & Co ., 496 F.2d 444 (1......
-
Published Writings
...even then, the statements from such writings may be read into evidence but may not be received as exhibits. Schuchman v. Stackable , 198 Ill.App.3d 209, 144 Ill.Dec. 493, 555 N.E.2d 1012 (1990); Forstall v. Daigrepont , 551 So.2d 653 (La. 1989); Hickok v. G.D. Searle & Co ., 496 F.2d 444 (1......