Sidorewicz v. Kostelny
Decision Date | 28 December 1981 |
Docket Number | No. 80-2704,80-2704 |
Citation | 430 N.E.2d 377,58 Ill.Dec. 435,102 Ill.App.3d 851 |
Parties | , 58 Ill.Dec. 435 Nelly SIDOREWICZ, a minor, by her mother and next friend, Heide Sidorewicz, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dr. John KOSTELNY, M.D., Defendant-Appellee. |
Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Goldberg & Goldberg, and Lawrence Jay Weiner, Frederic Bryan Lesser, Chicago (Lawrence Jay Weiner & Associates, Chicago, of counsel), for plaintiff-appellant.
Wildman, Harrold, Allen & Dixon, Lenard C. Swanson, Chicago, (Kay L. Schichtel, Chicago, of counsel), for defendant-appellee.
This is an appeal from a jury verdict in favor of defendant in which plaintiff had alleged malpractice. On appeal, she asserts that (1) the trial court erred in preventing her counsel from discussing the anticipated instructions with the jury; (2) reversible error was committed when defendant's counsel stated to the jury that the court's failure to direct a verdict against defendant meant that his admission of fault was not an admission of medical malpractice; and (3) reversible error was committed when defendant's counsel implied that defendant was not insured. A complete recitation of the facts is not necessary here as plaintiff claims no error up until closing arguments.
On November 17, 1976, Nelly Sidorewicz filed a complaint against defendant, an obstetrician and gynecologist, alleging that he had negligently provided medical care to her during her birth, which resulted in an injury to her right brachioplexis.
The day before closing arguments, defense counsel presented a motion in limine restricting the attorneys from implying insurance was or was not involved in this matter.
Closing arguments were held on July 17, 1980 and the following colloquy occurred between plaintiff's counsel and the trial court:
The second thing is that there are injuries, and the third thing is what is known as proximate cause.
Now, there is uncontradicted testimony, uncontradicted, that the injury is a brachioplexus injury. So, that's one element that's proven already.
The next is we have to prove what's known as proximate cause, that the cause was the conduct, the negligence of Dr. Kostelny brought about the injury.
All of the doctors in this case that have testified, Dr. Kostelny himself included on Section 60, Dr. Miller, Dr. Dodson, all of them have said that if the Cesarean section had been done, the shoulder dystocia and the brachioplexus injury would not have been present.
Now, ladies and gentlemen, a cause simply means that there can be more than one; and you can have a series of acts or events that give rise to it.
Defense counsel commented to the jury during his closing argument that:
And finally, plaintiff claims error in defense counsel's response regarding defendant's admission of fault:
MR. GOLDBERG: (plaintiff's counsel) "At some point after the delivery, Dr. Kostelny went up to Mr. Sidorewicz and had a conversation with him. And what did he say? Dr. Kostelny said to Mr. Sidorewicz,
Thereinafter, the next day, he talks to Mrs. Sidorewicz. And what does he say to her? " (Supp. Rec. 20-21)
[58 Ill.Dec. 437] baby had a [102...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Lounsbury v. Yorro, 2-83-0454
...perspective of the applicable law contained in the court's instructions and specifically approved in Sidorewicz v. Kostelny (1981), 102 Ill.App.3d 851, 58 Ill.Dec. 435, 430 N.E.2d 377. It is the exclusive province of the trial court to instruct the jury as to the law, and it is not the func......
-
Boatmen's Nat. Bank of Belleville v. Martin
...anticipated instructions and develop their arguments in accordance with these instructions." Sidorewicz v. Kostelny (1981), 102 Ill.App.3d 851, 854, 58 Ill.Dec. 435, 437, 430 N.E.2d 377, 379. Surveys of jurors have shown that jurors often have difficulty relating the case to the instruction......
-
People v. Glasco
... ... permitted to state their belief as to the anticipated instructions and develop their arguments in accordance with these instructions.' Sidorewicz v. Kostelny (1981), ... [195 Ill.Dec. 321] 102 Ill.App.3d 851, 854 [58 Ill.Dec. 435, 437] 430 N.E.2d 377, 379 ... * * * * * * ... ...
-
Ficken v. Alton & Southern Ry. Co., 5-91-0513
...or misleading, to read instructions or portions of them as part of closing argument. As noted in Sidorewicz v. Kostelny (1981), 102 Ill.App.3d 851, 58 Ill.Dec. 435, 430 N.E.2d 377, counsel may state their belief as to the content of anticipated instructions in developing their closing argum......