Snelson v. Kamm

Decision Date20 March 2003
Docket Number No. 91232, No. 91239.
Citation272 Ill.Dec. 610,787 N.E.2d 796,204 Ill.2d 1
PartiesRobert SNELSON, Appellee and Cross-Appellant, v. Donald KAMM, M.D., et al. (Donald Kamm, M.D., Appellant and Cross-Appellee).
CourtIllinois Supreme Court

Michael J. Kehart, Albert G. Webber, of Kehart, Shafter, Webber, Campbell & Robinson, Decatur, for appellant in No. 91232.

Patrick S. O'Shaughnessy, Christopher R. Doscotch, of The Janssen Law Center, Peoria, for appellee in No.91232.

Patrick S. O'Shaughnessy, Christopher R. Doscotch, of The Janssen Law Center, Peoria, for appellant in No.91239.

Michael J. Kehart, of Kehart, Shafter, Webber, Campbell & Robinson, Decatur, for appellee Donald Kamm in No. 91239.

Richard J. Wilderson, April G. Troemper, of Graham & Graham, Ltd., Springfield, Hugh C. Griffin, Stevie A. Starnes, of Lord, Bissell & Brook, Chicago, for appellee St. Mary's Hospital of Decatur in No. 91239.

Justice THOMAS delivered the opinion of the court:

Plaintiff, Robert Snelson, brought a negligence action against defendants, Donald Kamm, M.D. (Kamm), and St. Mary's Hospital of Decatur (St. Mary's). Following a jury trial in the circuit court of Macon County, a verdict was returned in favor of Snelson and against Kamm and St. Mary's in the amount of $7 million. After a hearing on defendants' posttrial motions, the trial court granted St. Mary's a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (judgment n.o.v.) on the issue of proximate cause and granted Kamm a new trial on the issue of damages, setting aside the $7 million award. The appellate court consolidated the separate appeals by Snelson and Kamm, and affirmed the orders of the trial court. 319 Ill.App.3d 116, 253 Ill.Dec. 354, 745 N.E.2d 128. We allowed Snelson's and Kamm's petitions for leave to appeal (177 Ill.2d R. 315) and also consolidated the appeals.

Before this court, Snelson contends that the trial court erred by: (1) granting Kamm a new trial on the issue of damages; and (2) granting St. Mary's motion for judgment n.o.v. Kamm challenges certain of the trial court's rulings and the jury's verdict. Specifically, Kamm claims: (1) he was improperly prevented from examining Snelson's medical expert as to bias; (2) the testimony of Snelson's medical expert should not have been admitted, because it lacked foundation; (3) the jury was improperly instructed; (4) certain medical bills of Snelson's were improperly admitted into evidence; (5) the verdict was tainted by extraneous information; (6) the verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence; and (7) the verdict is excessive.

BACKGROUND

At the June 1999 jury trial, the following evidence was adduced. In March 1994, Snelson was 58 years old and employed as a clerk by the Illinois Central Gulf Railroad. Snelson was referred to Kamm, a general surgeon, who suggested that Snelson undergo a radiological procedure known as an aortogram or arteriogram, to determine the location of arterial blockages in his legs caused by arteriosclerosis, commonly referred to as hardening of the arteries. Dr. Carlos Capati, a radiologist practicing at St. Mary's, testified that, on March 2, 1999, while attempting to perform a translumbar aortogram on Snelson, he experienced difficulty navigating the guide wire into the thoracic aorta. It appeared that the guide wire instead entered the superior mesenteric artery, which supplies blood to the intestine. Capati withdrew the translumbar needle and the guide wire and attempted to reinsert the guide wire into the aorta. During the second attempt, however, Snelson's blood pressure dropped, he complained of abdominal and back pain and expressed an urge to have a bowel movement. A portable commode was brought in and Capati examined Snelson's stool, but did not notice any discoloration. At that point, Capati terminated the procedure and informed Kamm that he had been unable to complete the test and that Snelson was complaining of back and abdominal pain.

Snelson's son, James Snelson, testified that following the unsuccessful aortogram, he saw his father being brought back to his room on a stretcher, "screaming and yelling." Once in his bed, Snelson began complaining of "a lot of pain in his stomach." He was lying on his side "in a fetal position" with his eyes closed and was sweating profusely. Snelson also complained of pressure in his stomach and the need to use the bathroom. James stated that he went to the nurses station and told them that his father needed a catheter and one was provided at about 3 or 3:30 p.m. James testified that he left St. Mary's late that afternoon to care for his mother and, prior to his departure, did not see Kamm visit his father. James stated that he spoke to his father by telephone that evening at approximately 8 p.m., and that his father still complained of pain and was not making sense.

The nurses on staff at St. Mary's on March 2 and 3, 1994, recorded notes on Snelson's condition, but none who testified at trial had any independent recollection of the events. The nurses' notes indicate that, following the unsuccessful aortogram, Snelson was returned to his room at 12:40 p.m. He was complaining of pain in his abdomen and cramping and requested a bedside commode. A 12:44 p.m. shift assessment showed that Snelson was alert and complaining of pain. According to the nurses' notes, the pain rated "7" on a scale of 1 to 10. At 12:45 p.m., Snelson had a large bowel movement and continued to complain of severe pain across the middle of his abdomen radiating into his back. At this point, the nurses notified Kamm of Snelson's complaints of abdominal pain. In response, Kamm ordered by phone that Snelson receive blood tests and pain medication, 50 milligrams Demerol by muscular injection, every three hours as needed. Kamm also ordered that Snelson's vital signs be taken every 15 minutes for two hours and then hourly thereafter.

Snelson's vital signs were then checked every 15 minutes from 12:45 p.m. to 2:30 p.m. During this period, plaintiff's temperature stayed below normal, his respirations were normal and remained constant. His pulse rose during the first hour and then fell back to normal the second hour, while his blood pressure dropped and rose throughout the period.

The nurses charted in their flow sheet that a catheter was inserted to empty Snelson's bladder around 3 p.m. A second shift assessment at 3:35 p.m. showed Snelson's bowel sounds were normal, but he continued to complain of abdominal pain. At 4 p.m., Snelson had a bowel movement with blood-tinged mucous. The nurses immediately paged Dr. Kamm, and were advised that he was in surgery at another hospital. Kamm called back at 4:30 p.m. and was advised by a nurse of the bloody bowel movement. Kamm testified that he spoke with the nurse about Snelson's condition at 4:30 p.m., and concluded that the bloody stool was due to a mild hemorrhoid or fissure. Kamm told the nurse he would quickly conclude his duties at the other hospital and would proceed directly to St. Mary's.

At 6 p.m., Kamm arrived at St. Mary's and examined Snelson for 15 or 20 minutes. At this time, Kamm had access to the nurses' notes, shift assessments, flow sheets and vital sign records which had recorded Snelson's condition. Kamm noted that Snelson's vital signs were stable, but he had passed several small bloodtinged stools and was complaining of abdominal pain and difficulty urinating. Kamm found that Snelson's lower abdomen was tender and distended, with diminished bowel sounds. Kamm's notes further state the following: "Concerned about mesenteric insufficiency or thrombo-embolus with ischemia. Will watch closely." Kamm testified that he was not making a diagnosis of mesenteric ischemia, or deficiency of blood circulation to the intestinal system, but rather was "entertaining [it] as a one of the rare possibilities" of arteriographic puncture complications. Rather, at the time, Kamm thought that the most likely cause of Snelson's pain was bleeding into his retroperitoneal area from the puncture sites.

Because Kamm believed that the fullness and tenderness in Snelson's lower abdomen was consistent with a distended bladder, he ordered a catheter inserted. Kamm noted that the catheter caused considerable relief in Snelson's discomfort at that point. Kamm believed that the catheter inserted after his 6 p.m. examination was the first time a catheter had been used on Snelson. However, the nurses' flow sheet, which Kamm had available to him at the 6 p.m. examination, indicated that a catheter had been inserted at 3 p.m. Kamm acknowledged that a catheter could have been ordered before he arrived as part of a postoperative order. At any rate, it was undisputed that the catheter brought pressure relief and lessened Snelson's discomfort.

Kamm further testified that, based on his 6 p.m. assessment, he believed Snelson's condition had stabilized, and that it was therefore safe to increase his pain medication from 50 milligrams to 100 milligrams of Demerol every four hours as needed. He further ordered that Snelson have no food or liquids by mouth, that the nurses check his vital signs every four hours, and that some laboratory work be completed for the next morning. Kamm then left St. Mary's for the evening.

After Kamm's examination, the nurses observed Snelson at least every hour. A nurse's notation for that evening indicates that Snelson had a normal bowel movement and received Demerol at 7 p.m. It was also noted that Snelson slept most of the evening. He was awake at 10 p.m., but was back asleep at 11 p.m. No documentation exists showing that Snelson's vital signs were taken at 10 p.m.

Kamm conferred with the nurses before he went to bed around 10 p.m. and was advised that Snelson was stable and that they had nothing new to report. At midnight, Snelson's vital signs were taken. The section in the shift assessment to indicate level of pain was not marked at that time. St. Mary's nurse Belinda Durbin testified that at 12:45...

To continue reading

Request your trial
320 cases
  • People v. Ciborowski
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • June 3, 2016
    ...and a reviewing court will not reverse the trial court absent a showing of an abuse of that discretion. Snelson v. Kamm, 204 Ill.2d 1, 24, 272 Ill.Dec. 610, 787 N.E.2d 796 (2003) ; People v. Hall, 195 Ill.2d 1, 20–21, 252 Ill.Dec. 552, 743 N.E.2d 126 (2000). An abuse of discretion occurs wh......
  • People v. Williams
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • February 20, 2020
    ...the reviewing court would have made the same decision if it were acting as the lower tribunal"); see also Snelson v. Kamm , 204 Ill. 2d 1, 33, 272 Ill.Dec. 610, 787 N.E.2d 796 (2003) (with respect to evidentiary rulings, "a reviewing court will not reverse the trial court unless that discre......
  • UNION PLANTERS BANK v. LLP
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • June 3, 2010
    ...a reviewing court may not simply reweigh the evidence and substitute its judgment for that of the jury.” Snelson v. Kamm, 204 Ill.2d 1, 35, 272 Ill.Dec. 610, 787 N.E.2d 796 (2003). “Indeed, a reviewing court may reverse a jury verdict only if it is against the manifest weight of the evidenc......
  • Razor v. Hyundai Motor America
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • February 2, 2006
    ...proving damages, the burden is on the plaintiff to establish a reasonable basis for computing damages.'" Snelson v. Kamm, 204 Ill.2d 1, 33, 272 Ill.Dec. 610, 787 N.E.2d 796 (2003), quoting Gill v. Foster, 157 Ill.2d 304, 313, 193 Ill.Dec. 157, 626 N.E.2d (1993). In this case, plaintiff fail......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
23 books & journal articles
  • Table of cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Proving Damages to the Jury - 2020 Part 5: How to handle unique issues in damage cases
    • August 5, 2020
    ...Sec. , 2009 WL 2982751 (W.D.Mich. 2009), §21:37 Smith v. Ingersoll-Rand Co. , 214 F.3d 1235, 1246 (10th Cir. 2000), §7:10 Snelson v. Kamm, 204 Ill 2d 1, 24, 787 NE2d 796, 809 (2003), §7:02 Southern Pac. Co. v. Hayes , 391 S.W.2d 463, 468 (Tex.Civ.App. 1965), §20:91 Southwestern Bell Tel. Co......
  • Argumentative questions
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Is It Admissible? Part I. Testimonial Evidence
    • May 1, 2022
    ...cross-examination of an opposing witness for the purpose of showing his bias or interest is a substantial legal right. Snelson v. Kamm, 272 Ill.Dec. 610, 787 N.E.2d 796 (2003). Generally, during cross-examination, opposing counsel may probe bias, partnership or financial interests of the wi......
  • Argumentative Questions
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Is It Admissible? - 2015 Part I - Testimonial Evidence
    • July 31, 2015
    ...cross-examination of an opposing witness for the purpose of showing his bias or interest is a substantial legal right. Snelson v. Kamm, 272 Ill.Dec. 610, 787 N.E.2d 796 (2003). Generally, during cross-examination, opposing counsel may probe bias, partnership or financial interests of the wi......
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Illinois Objections
    • May 1, 2013
    ...Dist 2009), §§6:150, 6:160, 11:100 Smith v. Silver Cross Hosp. , 339 Ill App 3d 67, 790 NE2d 77 (2003), §§1:300, 4:50 Snelson v. Kamm , 204 Ill 2d 1, 787 NE2d 796 (2003), §§1:150, 1:310 Snelson v. Kamm , 319 Ill App 3d 116, 745 NE2d 128 (2001), §§11:90, 22:10 Snyder v. Poplett , 98 Ill App ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT