Knight v. Haydary
585 N.E.2d 243, 223 Ill. App. 3d 564, 165 Ill. Dec. 847 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A trial court has broad discretion to bar an expert witness from testifying for failure to comply with a court-ordered discovery deadline, even if the disclosure occurs before the state's final statutory deadline for completing expert discovery.
Facts:
- On July 18, 1983, Patrice Knight was admitted to Sherman Hospital under the care of Dr. A. Lee Haydary for a miscarriage.
- Dr. Haydary administered multiple IVs containing Pitocin, a drug known to have a potential side effect of causing water retention and dangerously low sodium levels (hyponatremia).
- Some of the IVs given to Knight after her surgical procedure contained 5% dextrose and water (D5W), a solution with no electrolytes to balance her fluids.
- On the morning of July 20, Knight began complaining of headache, nausea, and vomiting; Dr. Haydary examined her and believed she had the flu.
- At 1 p.m. on July 20, Knight was found unconscious and having seizure-like movements. Dr. Haydary asked an internist, Dr. Erwin Robin, to examine her.
- Dr. Robin examined Knight and determined her condition was likely psychological, advising consultation with a psychiatrist or neurologist.
- Later that afternoon, after a psychiatrist witnessed Knight have a grand mal seizure, it was determined she had an organic brain problem.
- Knight's condition rapidly deteriorated, and she died from hyponatremia, which caused fatal swelling and herniation of the brain.
Procedural Posture:
- Fredrick Knight, administrator of Patrice Knight's estate, filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against Dr. A. Lee Haydary and Dr. Erwin Robin in the circuit court of Kane County (a state trial court).
- The trial court issued a pretrial order setting a cutoff date for the disclosure of expert witnesses.
- Plaintiff disclosed an expert, Dr. Reines, more than two years after the court-ordered deadline.
- Upon Dr. Robin's motion, the trial court barred Dr. Reines from testifying as a sanction for the late disclosure.
- At the close of the plaintiff's case at trial, the court granted a directed verdict in favor of Dr. Robin.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of Dr. Haydary.
- Plaintiff appealed the directed verdict for Dr. Robin and the jury verdict for Dr. Haydary to the Appellate Court of Illinois, Second District (an 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:
Does a trial court abuse its discretion by barring the testimony of a plaintiff's expert witness who was disclosed after a court-ordered discovery deadline but more than 60 days before the anticipated trial date?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice McLaren
No. A trial court does not abuse its discretion by barring an expert witness for failure to comply with a court-ordered discovery schedule. Trial courts possess inherent authority, as well as authority under procedural rules like Supreme Court Rule 218, to control their dockets by setting deadlines and limiting the number of expert witnesses. While Supreme Court Rule 220 establishes a final deadline that expert discovery must be completed 60 days before trial, it does not prevent a court from imposing its own, earlier schedule. In this case, the plaintiff disclosed Dr. Reines more than two years after the court's deadline had passed and offered no explanation for the delay. Furthermore, the exclusion was not prejudicial, as the proposed testimony would have been cumulative to that of the plaintiff's other experts. The jury's verdict in favor of Dr. Haydary was also affirmed, as the conflicting expert testimony on the standard of care and causation created a substantial question of fact for the jury to decide.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the significant case management authority of trial courts in Illinois. It clarifies that specific pretrial scheduling orders take precedence over more general statewide procedural rules that set outer-limit deadlines. The ruling serves as a strong cautionary tale for litigators, emphasizing that non-compliance with court-ordered deadlines, even if there is an arguable compliance with a broader rule, can result in the exclusion of critical evidence. The court's additional focus on the cumulative nature of the excluded testimony highlights that an appellant must also demonstrate actual prejudice to succeed in challenging such a discretionary ruling.
