 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Bryant v. Lagrange Memorial Hospital12/17/2003
mpleting preparations for the C-section to a breach of the standard of care by the nurses or the Hospital.
Where it is alleged that a hospital should be held responsible for the conduct of its agent or employee medical professionals under vicarious liability, as in this case, a hospital's conduct is measured against a professional standard of care. See Advincula v. United Blood Services, 176 Ill. 2d 1, 31, 678 N.E.2d 1009 (1996). In the instant case, the only claims submitted to the jury against the Hospital were claims of negligent nursing care. These were claims of professional negligence. Consequently, this is not an "institutional negligence" case. See Darling v. Charleston Community Memorial Hospital, 33 Ill. 2d 326, 332, 211 N.E.2d 253 (1965) (holding that hospitals may be held liable for institutional negligence); Advincula, 176 Ill. 2d at 31 (stating that " he area of liability recognized by Darling does not encompass, whatsoever, a hospital's responsibility for the conduct of its agent or employee medical professionals").
In a professional negligence case, the standard of care required of a defendant medical professional is to act as would an "ordinarily careful professional." Advincula, 176 Ill. 2d at 23. Under this standard of care, a professional is expected to use the same degree of knowledge, skill and ability as an ordinarily careful professional would exercise in similar circumstances. Advincula, 176 Ill. 2d at 23-24.
In a medical negligence case against a hospital based on vicarious liability for the conduct of its nurses, it is necessary for a plaintiff to present expert testimony to establish the standard of care and that its breach was the proximate cause of plaintiff's injury . Snelson v. Kamm, 204 Ill. 2d 1, 42, 787 N.E.2d 796 (2003). The rationale for requiring expert testimony is that a lay juror is not skilled in the practice of medicine and is, therefore, unequipped to evaluate professional medical conduct without the aid of expert testimony. Advincula, 176 Ill. 2d at 24.
An exception to the general rule requiring expert testimony is recognized in medical malpractice actions where the medical professional's conduct is so grossly negligent or the treatment so common that a layperson may understand the conduct without the need for an expert to establish the standard of care and its breach. Walski v. Tiesenga, 72 Ill. 2d 249, 256, 381 N.E.2d 279 (1978); Prairie v. University of Chicago Hospitals, 298 Ill. App. 3d 316, 321, 698 N.E.2d 611 (1998). For example, expert testimony is not required to meet the burden of proof in medical malpractice cases involving obvious careless acts from which a lay person could use his common knowledge and infer negligence, such as leaving a sponge or an instrument in a patient's body after surgery. See Comte v. O'Neil, 125 Ill. App. 2d 450, 454, 261 N.E.2d 21 (1970). The common knowledge exception permits jurors to utilize their own experiences in determining whether a medical act or omission was negligent. Metz v. Fairbury Hospital, 118 Ill. App. 3d 1093, 1098, 455 N.E.2d 1096 (1983). The common knowledge exception, however, is rarely applied and is strictly limited to its facts. Weekly v. Solomon, 156 Ill. App. 3d 1011, 1017, 510 N.E.2d 152 (1987).
At oral argument, plaintiffs' counsel argued that the common knowledge exception applied, since no expert medical testimony was required for the jury to determine that the nurses assembled the surgical team for the C-section in an untimely manner. Plaintiffs' counsel argued that jurors could use their common knowledge and infer that after Dr. Kim ordered the C-section, the nurses did not timely call the anesthesiologist, in light of Dr. Kim's deposition testi
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Illinois Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|