Downey v. Dunnington
895 N.E.2d 271, 324 Ill. Dec. 108, 384 Ill. App. 3d 350 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A jury verdict is not against the manifest weight of the evidence, and a motion for a new trial is properly denied, when the verdict is supported by some evidence in the record, even if there is conflicting expert testimony on the applicable standard of care.
Facts:
- Sandra G. Downey, concerned about her risk for breast cancer, consulted with surgeon Dr. Gary Dunnington.
- Downey, accompanied by her mother Betty Hart, provided Dunnington with an inaccurate family medical history, incorrectly stating that Hart had bilateral breast cancer and that both Hart and Downey's sister had ovarian cancer.
- In reality, Hart had cancer in only one breast, and neither she nor Downey's sister ever had ovarian cancer; they had cervical cancer issues.
- Based on the erroneous information provided directly by Downey and her mother, Dunnington assessed Downey as being at a significantly high risk for developing hereditary breast cancer.
- Dunnington discussed several treatment options, including Tamoxifen, genetic testing (which he noted would not be covered by public aid), and bilateral prophylactic mastectomies.
- Believing her risk was extremely high and that she could not afford genetic testing, Downey chose to undergo the bilateral prophylactic mastectomies.
- Dunnington performed the surgery, and a subsequent pathological examination of the removed breast tissue revealed no malignancy.
Procedural Posture:
- Sandra G. Downey sued Dr. Gary Dunnington and his employer, SIU Physicians and Surgeons, Inc., in a state trial court for professional negligence (medical malpractice).
- Prior to trial, the court granted the defendants' motion in limine to bar evidence suggesting Dunnington's treatment decisions were based on Downey's inability to pay for genetic testing.
- The trial court also granted defendants' motion for partial summary judgment on the specific allegations that Dunnington improperly considered Downey's ability to pay and failed to inform her of available grants.
- The case proceeded to a jury trial on the remaining negligence claims.
- The jury returned a general verdict in favor of the defendants, Dunnington and SIU.
- Downey filed a motion for a new trial, arguing the verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence and that the court made erroneous evidentiary rulings, which the trial court denied.
- Downey, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the intermediate appellate court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a jury verdict in favor of a defendant physician in a medical malpractice case against the manifest weight of the evidence when there is conflicting expert testimony regarding the standard of care for verifying a patient's family medical history before recommending a major elective procedure?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Appleton
No, the jury's verdict was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. When there are conflicts in the evidence and disagreements among expert witnesses, it is the jury's role to resolve those conflicts and determine credibility. In this case, Downey's expert, Dr. Weber, testified that the standard of care required Dunnington to independently verify the family history with medical records and refer Downey to a genetic counselor. Conversely, the defendants' expert, Dr. Fines, testified that Dunnington complied with the standard of care by relying on the history provided by Downey and her mother, who was present during the consultation, and that surgeons do not routinely obtain family members' records. Since the jury had a choice between these competing expert opinions and their verdict was supported by the testimony of Dunnington and Fines, their finding was not unreasonable, arbitrary, or without basis in the evidence. Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for a new trial.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the high degree of deference appellate courts afford to jury verdicts, particularly in cases that hinge on a 'battle of the experts.' The ruling clarifies that a conflict in expert testimony does not, by itself, render a verdict against the manifest weight of the evidence. For future medical malpractice litigation, this case underscores that the jury's assessment of expert credibility is paramount and will likely be upheld as long as there is some evidentiary support for its conclusion. The opinion also demonstrates the application of the harmless error doctrine, where minor evidentiary errors at trial will not lead to reversal unless they are shown to be prejudicial enough to have affected the outcome.
