Illinois Malpractice Settlement Amounts and Law

This page is about Illinois medical malpractice lawsuits, how they work, and the settlement amounts and jury payouts victims see. Sample settlements and verdicts are useful tools in conjunction with other tools to help victims better understand at least the range of values in a medical malpractice case.  Clearly, no two cases are the same, and you cannot summarize a case in a paragraph. Sometimes, I have tried or settled cases where there is no way I could summarize the case in a way that would explain why the plaintiff won or why the verdict was as high or low as it was.  Said differently, reading these is important and education in understanding the value of medical malpractice claims in Illinois but you can only learn so much from these. If you have what appears to be an identical case, the results could be very different. All of these verdicts are from 2014 to 2025. Illinois is a big state, and many cases go to trial here.

• For the latest news and events in Illinois medical malpractice, jump to our Illinois Malpractice News Feed.

Illinois Malpractice Settlements and Verdicts

If you are researching medical malpractice cases in Illinois, you are likely trying to understand how these lawsuits are valued and what outcomes other victims have received. The examples below highlight medical malpractice cases in the last 5 years, including settlements and jury verdicts across various injury types and allegations. These case results can help provide context, but they are not a guarantee of what your own case is worth. No two claims are the same. The settlement amount or jury payout depends on the severity of the injury, the clarity of the negligence, the available insurance coverage, and the experience of your attorney. While these examples are helpful, your case’s settlement amount or jury payout will depend on its specific facts.

The verdicts above are not drawn from a scientific sampling or controlled dataset. No consistent methodology is used to gather them, and most are selected because they are either recent, large, or notable. So take the instructive value of this chart with a few buckets of salt.  Still, these examples are useful for plaintiffs trying to understand the range of possible outcomes in Illinois medical malpractice cases.

Sample Verdicts by Injury Type

Injury Type	Number of Cases	Median Verdict	Average Verdict	Verdict Range
Birth Injury	7	$14M	$20.9M	$7.25M – $48.2M
Stroke	5	$40M	$26.7M	$3.6M – $41M
Misdiagnosis	4	$6.35M	$8.1M	$2M – $14M
Surgical Error	5	$6M	$12.2M	$2M – $56M
Medication Error	3	$1.37M	$1.66M	$600K – $2M
Cancer Misdiagnosis	2	$9.26M	$9.26M	$6.53M – $12M
Post-Op Infection / Sepsis	2	$28.8M	$28.8M	$8.05M – $49.55M
Nursing Home Negligence	1	$5.5M	$5.5M	$5.5M

How Much Can You Sue a Hospital or Doctor for Malpractice in Illinois?

Hospital and physician malpractice payouts in Illinois can vary significantly depending on the facts of the case. Some verdicts and settlements reach as high as fifty million dollars. But some cases fall well below a million. It really just depends on the case but several key factors determine compensation payouts. They include the severity of the injury, the strength of the negligence evidence, and the relationship between the provider and the hospital.

Hospital Liability and Settlement Amounts

Hospitals in Illinois have faced some of the largest malpractice verdicts and settlements in the country, especially in cases where patients were seriously harmed or killed due to preventable medical errors. These cases often involve failures that go beyond one bad decision, like when nurses fail to monitor a patient after surgery, when warning signs of an infection are ignored, or when a delayed C-section leads to a devastating birth injury. If you or your family has lived through something like this, you know how quickly a hospital’s mistake can change everything. Illinois juries have awarded between one million and fifty million dollars in these cases because the harm is real, permanent, and life-altering.

Our medical malpractice lawyers have repeatedly found that it is easier to bring a strong malpractice case against a hospital than against a single doctor. That is not just a legal strategy—it reflects how medical care really works. Hospitals are responsible for the systems, the staffing levels, the communication, and the safety protocols that affect every patient who walks through their doors. When those systems break down and a patient pays the price, the hospital should answer for it. And unlike individual doctors, hospitals usually have the insurance coverage and resources to pay for the full scope of what was lost.

Juries are more likely to hold hospitals fully accountable because they understand that the harm goes beyond a single mistake. A hospital is not a solo practitioner. It is an institution. When jurors hear about avoidable deaths or catastrophic injuries caused by understaffing, ignored test results, or missed opportunities to intervene, they are more willing to return large verdicts. They know that serious consequences are sometimes the only way to force change and they are less likely to feel sympathy for a hospital that screwed up than an individual doctor alone.

Physician Malpractice Settlement Amounts

Doctors can be held liable when their conduct falls below the accepted standard of care. Claims against individual physicians often arise from surgical errors, diagnostic mistakes, prescription mishandling, or failure to follow up. Settlements and verdicts in Illinois physician malpractice cases range widely, often between several hundred thousand dollars and tens of millions of dollars. Higher awards usually reflect permanent injury or death.

When a malpractice case involves both a hospital and one or more physicians, liability and damages may be divided between them depending on agency relationships and comparative fault.

Bottom Line

While there is no fixed amount for suing a hospital or doctor, recent Illinois verdicts and settlements reflect that high-value claims are possible when medical errors result in serious harm. These cases are fact-intensive and require careful legal and medical analysis to determine who is responsible and how much compensation is appropriate.

Illinois Medical Malpractice Statistics

Medical Malpractice Settlements In 2023, the last year for which we have data, Illinois recorded 473 medical malpractice payment reports, ranking seventh in total number of payments nationwide.

Average and Median Payouts The average payout for a medical malpractice claim in Illinois is approximately $617,540, which is higher than the national average.

Per Capita Ranking Illinois ranks 15th in the nation for medical malpractice payouts per capita.

Time to Resolve Claims The average time to resolve a medical malpractice claim in Illinois is, frustratingly, 3.5 years.

Illinois Medical Malpractice Law

Let’s look at some of the key things you need to know if you are interested in filing a medical malpractice lawsuit in Illinois.

What You Need to Prove

Medical malpractice, also known as medical negligence, occurs when a healthcare professional provides treatment that deviates from established standards in the medical community, causing injury to a patient. This can involve errors in diagnosis, treatment, aftercare, or health management. In Illinois, a plaintiff alleging medical malpractice must demonstrate that:

1. A doctor-patient relationship existed, establishing a duty of care.
2. The healthcare professional breached this duty by failing to conform to the standard of care expected of a reasonable healthcare provider.
3. The breach directly caused injury or harm to the patient. So you can have unconnected negligence and harm.
4. The patient suffered actual damages, such as physical pain, mental anguish, additional medical costs, or lost earning capacity.

Expert Affidavit Requirement

As part of bringing a medical malpractice lawsuit in Illinois, plaintiffs must clear an early procedural hurdle that is designed to weed out frivolous claims. Under Illinois law (735 ILCS 5/2-622), anyone filing a malpractice complaint must also submit an affidavit of merit. This affidavit confirms that the plaintiff’s medical malpractice attorney has consulted with a qualified health care professional who practices or teaches in the same area of medicine as the defendant or a closely related specialty.

But it does not stop there. The consultation must result in a written report from that medical expert, laying out their opinion that there is a reasonable and meritorious basis for the lawsuit. In plain terms, the expert must believe the defendant’s conduct likely fell below the accepted standard of care and caused harm. The report has to speak directly to the core elements of malpractice: duty, breach, causation, and damages.

This is not just a box to check. If the affidavit or report is missing—or if it does not meet the statutory requirements—the court can dismiss the case outright. Judges take this seriously. The law is intended to filter out baseless claims before they move forward, ensuring that only cases supported by actual medical evidence are allowed to proceed. Plaintiffs typically have to file the affidavit and report with the complaint, though the statute gives them up to 90 days after filing in some situations.

It is a demanding process, but one that sets the tone early: if you are going to bring a malpractice claim in Illinois, you had better come prepared, and you better have the best Illinois malpractice lawyer you can find.

Informed Consent

Healthcare providers must obtain informed consent from patients before proceeding with treatment, barring emergencies. Failure to obtain informed consent may be grounds for a malpractice claim if the patient suffers harm that they were not adequately warned about.

Vicarious Liability

A hospital can be held vicariously liable for the actions of a physician providing care at the hospital, irrespective of whether the physician is an independent contractor, unless the patient is aware, or should have been aware, that the physician is not a hospital employee. To establish a hospital’s liability under the doctrine of apparent authority, a plaintiff must demonstrate:

• The hospital, or its agent, acted in a way that would lead a reasonable person to conclude that the allegedly negligent individual was an employee or agent of the hospital.
• The hospital had knowledge of and acquiesced in these acts that created the appearance of authority.
• The plaintiff acted in reliance upon the conduct of the hospital or its agent, consistent with ordinary care and prudence.

Holding Out as Agent

The “holding out” part of the apparent agency doctrine is critical in determining whether a hospital can be held liable for the actions of a physician who is not their actual employee but appears to be so. This concept is based on how the hospital represents, or “holds out,” the doctor’s relationship with the hospital to the public, especially the patients. Here are the key aspects of the “holding out” factor:

1. Perception of the Physician’s Role: It’s about whether the hospital’s actions lead a reasonable person to conclude that the physician is an employee or agent of the hospital. This perception can be formed based on various hospital communications, actions, or overall presentation.
2. Objective Assessment: The evaluation is objective, not subjective. It doesn’t matter whether a specific patient actually believed the doctor was an employee but whether a reasonable person in the patient’s position would believe so.
3. Hospital’s Conduct and Communication: The focus is on the hospital’s conduct – how it presents its medical staff in its advertising, signage, website, and other forms of public communication. If the hospital’s presentation implies that the physicians are its employees or agents, it could be held responsible under the apparent agency theory.
4. Clarity and Notices: If the hospital clearly communicates that its physicians are independent contractors (for example, through signs, forms, or verbal notifications), this reduces the likelihood that it can be held liable under apparent agency. The clarity and visibility of such disclaimers or notices are crucial.
5. Patient’s Expectation and Understanding: The assessment also considers what the patient understood or should have understood about the physician’s status. For example, if a patient visits a hospital’s specialty clinic, they might reasonably assume that the doctors there are hospital employees unless informed otherwise.

So the “holding out” factor is about whether the hospital’s presentation and communications create a reasonable belief in the minds of patients that the doctors working there are hospital employees or agents, thereby making the hospital potentially liable for the doctors’ actions under the apparent agency doctrine.

Statute of Limitations

Illinois’s general statute of limitations for filing a medical malpractice lawsuit is two years. This two-year period begins when the injured person knew or reasonably should have known that the injury occurred and that it may have been caused by medical negligence. However, Illinois law imposes a strict outer deadline, known as a statute of repose, which bars any claim filed more than four years after the alleged act or omission, regardless of when the injury was discovered.

The limitations period is longer for minors under the age of 18. A malpractice claim must be brought within eight years of the date of the alleged malpractice, but it cannot be filed after the minor turns 22. This means that for a child injured at birth, for example, the family has until the child’s 22nd birthday to bring a lawsuit.

There are minimal exceptions to these deadlines, such as in cases involving fraud, concealment, or the presence of a foreign object left in the body. Otherwise, missing these timeframes will almost certainly bar a malpractice claim, no matter how strong the case is.

Illinois Malpractice News Feed

May 21, 2025 – $2.3 Million Botched Foot Surgery Verdict Affirmed

An Illinois appellate court affirmed a $2.86 million jury verdict awarded to a woman who suffered years of pain and permanent disability following two foot surgeries performed by a podiatrist. The plaintiff, who had osteoporosis and type 1 diabetes, originally sought treatment for mild bunions and was promised a minimally invasive surgical procedure with a quick recovery. Instead, the doctor performed aggressive surgeries on both feet that multiple experts later testified were medically unnecessary, poorly indicated, and violated the accepted standard of podiatric care.

After those surgeries, the plaintiff was left in constant pain, endured multiple follow-up operations—including toe fusions, bone grafts, and repeated hardware removals—and now lives with lifelong mobility limitations and daily pain. Expert testimony at trial described how the original procedures destabilized her feet, shifted pressure to other toes, and led to cascading complications.

The appellate court rejected the defense’s arguments that certain trial errors warranted a new trial. The court found no reversible error in how the trial judge handled witness testimony or the plaintiff’s billing expert. While the court did find a single improper question referencing a barred medical opinion, it ruled the jury was properly instructed to disregard it, and the error was harmless given the overwhelming evidence.

March 7, 2025 – New Appellate Opinion

The appellate court upheld the jury’s defense verdict in a medical negligence case involving delayed diagnosis and treatment of vision loss (NAION, which is now a big injury at issue in the Ozempic litigation).

On appeal, the plaintiffs claimed multiple trial errors, including a violation of the Petrillo doctrine—an Illinois rule that prohibits defense lawyers from having private, or “ex parte,” conversations with a plaintiff’s treating physician without the patient’s consent. Plaintiffs argued that defense counsel violated this rule by speaking privately with the patient’s longtime doctor. The court rejected this, finding that an earlier protective order explicitly allowed such communications with hospital-employed physicians involved in the patient’s care. Because that order remained in effect and was never modified or challenged, the communication did not violate Petrillo.

The takeaway is this: trial rulings—especially those involving evidentiary stipulations and protective orders—carry real weight on appeal. If plaintiffs believe a defense lawyer oversteps discovery rules like Petrillo, they must challenge those actions promptly and clearly. Failing to revoke or clarify a prior court order or to properly preserve objections often means the issue is lost for good.

January 13, 2025 – Broad Reach of Illinois Medical Malpractice Repose Statute Shuts Door on Late-Filed Claims

The Illinois Appellate Court affirmed summary judgment for a medical provider and physician, holding that the state’s four-year medical malpractice statute of repose barred the plaintiff’s claims. The case centered on whether a medical corporation lacking a formal certificate of registration was “duly licensed” under the statute. The court rejected the argument that a missing certificate of registration precluded application of the repose statute. It held that the statute’s protections apply so long as the underlying healthcare professional is licensed under the Medical Practice Act. The court also clarified that claims labeled as “institutional negligence” do not escape the statute of repose if they arise from patient care, even if the specific act, such as failing to notify a patient of pathology results, may appear administrative.

The takeaway is blunt but clear: plaintiffs cannot evade the statute of repose by reframing medical negligence as administrative or institutional wrongdoing. For attorneys, this decision reinforces the importance of understanding how courts interpret “arising out of patient care” broadly, applying repose even to failures in communication that follow clinical treatment. For victims, the message is more sobering: regardless of how severe the harm or clear the negligence, if the conduct stems from medical treatment and the statutory deadline passes, the door to justice may be shut permanently. Early legal consultation remains crucial in medical injury cases.

November 2, 2024 – $5 Million Psychiatric Malpractice Verdict Affirmed

Yesterday, the Illinois Appellate Court upheld a $5 million jury award in Binkowski v. International Health Systems, Inc.  The plaintiff filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against Advocate Health and Hospitals Corporation (Advocate) after her husband’s suicide, which occurred shortly after he was discharged from Advocate Good Samaritan Hospital. The plaintiff claimed that the hospital’s staff failed to meet the standard of care by discharging her husband, who had a high suicide risk, to an independent living facility that lacked necessary mental health support and monitoring. At trial, the plaintiff presented expert testimony indicating that the discharge plan was inadequate for someone in her husband’s condition. He was at significant risk of self-harm and needed continued therapeutic support. The expert argued that the discharge should have been to an intermediate care facility equipped to manage mental health needs, rather than an independent living arrangement with minimal supervision. The jury awarded $1 million in damages for the emotional distress the plaintiff’s husband experienced leading up to his death, and $4 million for the family’s loss of society, grief, and suffering. Advocate Health appealed, arguing there was insufficient evidence to establish causation and raised claims of trial errors, including procedural issues regarding witness testimony. The appellate court affirmed the lower court’s decision, finding that the evidence supported the expert’s conclusions regarding the standard of care and causation. The court also ruled that the jury’s damage award was reasonable based on the emotional and familial losses established at trial. Advocate’s requests for a new trial or reduction of the award were denied.

September 20, 2024 – New Trial for Wrongful Death Plaintiff

In an unreported opinion yesterday, an Illinois appellate court reversed a jury verdict in a medical malpractice and wrongful death case, ordering a new trial. The case involved the death of a patient allegedly due to a misdiagnosed thoracic aortic dissection. The court found that the trial court improperly allowed prejudicial evidence about the estate executor’s assertion of physician-patient privilege and his alleged obstruction during discovery, which unfairly suggested that the estate was hiding evidence. Given the close nature of the case, this error likely influenced the jury’s verdict. The appellate court also addressed other evidentiary issues for the retrial, upholding the introduction of evidence regarding the timing of the lawsuit but cautioning against its improper use. Additionally, the court found no error in allowing testimony about the disposal of autopsy specimens, as it was relevant to the defense’s expert testimony.

September 18, 2024 – $21 Million Verdict Affirmed

August 5, 2024 – Lifeguard Settlements

July 26, 2024: $6.35 Million Verdict Awarded to Man and His Wife

A $6.35 million verdict was awarded to a man and his wife following his need for a heart transplant due to a failure to diagnose coronary ischemia by his physician over several months. Despite initial tests indicating the need for further investigation, the condition was not identified, leading to a medical emergency seven months later. The patient was hospitalized in cardiac shock and ultimately required a heart transplant, which significantly shortened his life expectancy. The jury found both the physician and the associated medical group liable, awarding $3.85 million to the patient and $2.5 million to his wife for loss of society and companionship.

June 20, 2024: Court Finds No Abuse Of Discretion In Case Alleging Negligent Circumcision

In a newly reported opinion in O’Laughlin v. Northwestern Memorial Hospital, the plaintiff appealed a defense verdict in a case involving an allegedly negligently performed circumcision that allegedly caused a urethral fistula. The appeal focused on two key issues: the trial court’s allowance of an expert witness’s testimony that the plaintiff argued was not properly disclosed, and the use of a demonstrative video showing a different circumcision procedure. The appellate court upheld the trial court’s decisions, finding no abuse of discretion. It concluded that the expert’s testimony was a logical extension of disclosed opinions and that the video was relevant for illustrating differences in circumcision techniques.

June 11, 2024: Illinois Appellate Court Finds Errors In Trial Court’s Handling of Case

In a medical negligence lawsuit appeal decided yesterday, the Illinois Appellate Court reversed and remanded for a new trial after finding errors in the trial court’s handling of the case. The case involved allegations of improper medical treatment leading to a patient’s death. The trial court had issued a directed verdict for one defendant, and the jury found in favor of the other defendants. The appellate court identified two significant issues:

1. The directed verdict for one defendant was deemed improper as there was sufficient evidence that could suggest the defendant’s actions contributed to the patient’s death, warranting jury consideration.
2. The court’s response to a jury question about the need for unanimity in the verdict was potentially misleading, which could have affected the jury’s decision-making process.

Although the parties did not request a different judge, the appellate court took the extraordinary step of ordering a new trial to be overseen by a different judge, citing the awful relationship between the plaintiff’s lawyer and the judge.

June 10, 2024: New Wrongful Death Lawsuit Filed Against Greenfield Manor Nursing Home 

A new wrongful death lawsuit has been filed against the Greenfield Manor Nursing Home in Springfield, Illinois, alleging severe negligence and mistreatment that led to the death of a male resident. The plaintiffs claim that the nursing home failed to provide essential care, resulting in the resident being deprived of regular hygiene assistance, timely medical attention, and proper nutrition. The resident, who suffered from untreated bedsores that became severely infected due to the lack of proper medical care and hygiene, ultimately succumbed to these preventable conditions. The lawsuit details instances of unsanitary living conditions at Greenfield Manor, including filthy rooms, dirty bathrooms, and a general lack of cleanliness throughout the facility, creating serious health hazards. Additionally, the plaintiffs assert that Greenfield Manor was chronically understaffed, with insufficient numbers of caregivers to meet the basic needs of the residents. This understaffing allegedly led to the resident being left unattended for long periods, missing meals, and not receiving necessary medications on time.

June 6, 2024: Appellate Court Upholds Jury Verdict In Favor Of Defendant 

In a recent decision, the appellate court upheld a jury verdict in favor of the defendant in a medical malpractice case involving a complex delivery that resulted in a permanent brachial plexus injury to a newborn. The plaintiffs alleged in this Chicago birth injury lawsuit that the delivering obstetrician’s negligence during the delivery caused severe injury. The case focused on the delivery complications, particularly shoulder dystocia, where the baby’s shoulder became stuck behind the mother’s pubic bone. The obstetrician employed several maneuvers, including the McRoberts maneuver, to free the baby’s shoulder. Despite these efforts, the baby was born with a permanent injury to his left arm and shoulder. The plaintiffs appealed, arguing that the trial court improperly admitted certain expert testimonies and gave incorrect jury instructions. The 1st District Court of Appeals concluded that the expert testimonies presented by the defense were appropriately admitted and that the jury instructions given were proper and did not mislead the jurors.

June 1, 2024: Man Sues Two Doctors In Federal Court

A man is suing two doctors in federal court for malpractice. The plaintiff alleges that both doctors were negligent during a left inguinal hernia repair surgery on April 12, 2022. This negligence allegedly led to severe complications, including a large retroperitoneal hematoma with active bleeding, left testicular torsion, and left spermatic cord ischemia. The plaintiff was diagnosed with these complications the following day and had to undergo additional surgery for scrotal exploration and left orchiectomy. The lawsuit claims that these issues arose due to the defendant’s failure to effectively achieve adequate homeostasis during the initial surgery.

May 29, 2024: Trial Concludes With Jury Awarding $41 Million In Damages

A lawyer was admitted to a Peoria-based hospital for pneumonia treatment, which led to an acute kidney injury requiring dialysis. Diagnosed with atrial fibrillation, he was prescribed Coumadin to prevent stroke, necessitating careful monitoring of his blood clotting levels (INR). Upon his discharge, his INR levels were below the therapeutic range, and there was no plan to monitor these levels post-discharge.  Over the next month, he underwent dialysis at a facility where his blood was tested three times, but his dangerously low INR levels were not addressed. A month after discharge, he suffered a massive stroke, resulting in paralysis on his left side and severe cognitive deficits, rendering him unable to practice law or live independently. His family has since provided continuous care. The negligence lawsuit alleged the doctors and nurses failed to manage his medication properly. The trial, which lasted nearly a month, concluded with a Cook County jury awarding $41 million in damages.

May 24, 2024: Appellate Court Upholds Trial Court’s Decision In Favor Of Obstetrician

This week, the Appellate Court of Illinois upheld the trial court’s decision in favor of an obstetrician accused of causing a permanent brachial plexus injury to a baby during delivery. The parents of the injured child claimed that the OB used excessive traction during delivery. The defense was that various factors unrelated to the doctor’s actions, such as natural forces of labor or in-utero crowding. The jury found in favor of the OB.

May 8, 2024: New Medical Malpractice Lawsuit Filed Against Presence Central And Suburban Hospitals Network 

A new medical malpractice lawsuit has been filed against Presence Central and Suburban Hospitals Network and several healthcare professionals. The lawsuit details that a patient was admitted to Presence for a colostomy reversal procedure performed by a gastrointestinal surgeon. Four days later, while still hospitalized, the patient began showing symptoms of hypotension and sepsis, which allegedly were inadequately addressed by both the hospital staff and attending medical professionals. The allegations further state that due to the negligence of the healthcare providers, including the nursing staff and several physicians such as an anesthesiologist and another surgeon, the patient suffered from respiratory failure, ARDS, hypoxia, and septic shock. This condition necessitated his transfer to another facility for ECMO treatment and resulted in an extended hospitalization.

May 3, 2024: Lawsuit Filed In South District Of Illinois Alleges Serious Injuries 

In a lawsuit filed in the Southern District of Illinois, a plaintiff is suing two doctors, a surgeon and an anesthesiologist. You do not see many hernia mesh malpractice lawsuits but this one alleges serious injuries. This Illinois malpractice lawsuit revolves around complications from a left inguinal hernia repair surgery, specifically a large retroperitoneal hematoma with active bleeding, left testicular torsion, and left spermatic cord ischemia. The plaintiff argues these issues arose due to the doctors’ failure to adequately manage bleeding during the surgery, which is always an issue that has to be carefully monitored with this procedure. The plaintiff returned to surgery for additional procedures to address these complications. The case has been assigned to Magistrate Judge Mark A. Beatty.

April 3, 2024: Brayboy v. Advocate Health & Hospital Corp.

In Brayboy v. Advocate Health & Hospital Corp., a mother brought her three-year-old son to the emergency room at Advocate Good Samaritan Hospital with severe flu-like symptoms. Despite initial treatment and subsequent discharge, the child’s condition deteriorated, leading to his tragic death from an untreated bacterial infection after a return visit to the hospital. The family filed a wrongful death and survival action medical malpractice lawsuit.  The family’s lawsuit argued the doctors were negligent and that the emergency room physician should be considered an agent of the hospital.  This is a common battle in malpractice lawsuits as we discuss above. The hospital disputed the agency, relying heavily on a consent form the mother signed, labeling the physician as an independent contractor. The hospital won the first round. The trial court initially sided with the hospital, granting partial summary judgment on the grounds of actual and apparent agency concerning the physician’s role. Upon appeal, the plaintiff contested this decision, focusing on the hospital’s presentation of the doctor as its agent and the mother’s reliance on this depiction.   This is how it is in the emergency room.   you go to a hospital to go to that specific hospital, not to be treated by some independent contractor, and there is rarely an effort to set the patient straight. The appellate court reversed the lower court’s ruling, pointing out significant factual disputes regarding the apparent agency relationship and the adequacy and timing of the consent form provided to the mother. The case was sent back for further proceedings, emphasizing the need for clarity and transparency in communications between healthcare providers and patients about their legal relationships.

March 27, 2024: Appellate Court Of Illinois Reversed Lower Court’s Decision

In Larson v. Crosby, the Appellate Court of Illinois reversed a lower court’s decision granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants, a doctor, a medical group, and a medical employee.   This is a good case that will be cited in the future by plaintiffs trying to invoke the discovery rule in Illinois. The plaintiff alleged that the doctor left gauze in one plaintiff’s nasal cavity after surgery, causing severe pain, swelling, and permanent injury. The defense attorney argued that the lawsuit was filed outside the two-year statute of limitations, claiming the plaintiff should have been aware of her injury and its wrongful cause by a specific date. The appellate court found that the medical records and testimonies did not conclusively establish that the plaintiff had enough information by the deadline to suspect a wrongful cause for her symptoms. The evidence indicated uncertainty about the nature of the material removed from the plaintiff’s nose, and no definitive information was given to her that the injury was caused by retained surgical material. Consequently, the court determined that factual disputes about when the statute of limitations should begin remained unresolved, necessitating further fact inquiry.   The most likely scenario is that parties will argue the issues to the jury, which is a win for the plaintiff.

January 4, 2024: Plaintiff Gets New Trial From Important New Appellate Opinion

In an important new appellate opinion, the plaintiff got a new trial in a vicarious liability malpractice case. The plaintiff appealed the dismissal of her medical malpractice lawsuit against West Suburban Medical Center (WSMC). Her claim argued that WSMC was indirectly responsible for Dr. Victor Romano’s actions, which allegedly led to the amputation of her leg due to a missed cancer diagnosis. The court had initially granted summary judgment in favor of WSMC, but this decision was contested by the plaintiff. The Appellate Court identified significant uncertainties regarding whether WSMC presented itself as Dr. Romano’s employer or principal (known as the “holding out” element), and whether the plaintiff justifiably relied on WSMC for her medical care (the “justifiable reliance” element). Contributing factors included WSMC’s promotional activities for its physicians, the location of Dr. Romano’s office on WSMC’s premises, his receipt of a WSMC badge, and his various leadership roles at the hospital. Furthermore, the consent form the plaintiff signed in Dr. Romano’s office did not unambiguously state that he was not an employee of WSMC.  It is so easy to put that in the informed consent documents. We flush out some of the laws that came out of this case in the vicarious liability discussion above.

November 4, 2023: Patient Files Lawsuit Claiming He Became Paralyzed After Procedure At Memorial Hospital-Belleville

A patient has filed a lawsuit claiming he became paralyzed from the waist down after a surgical procedure at Memorial Hospital-Belleville went wrong. The lawsuit in St. Clair County Circuit Court names a doctor and Protestant Memorial Medical Center Inc. as defendants. The plaintiff’s malpractice lawsuit alleges that a diagnostic aortogram performed by the doctor led to a dissection of his aorta and subsequent bilateral limb ischemia, necessitating emergency surgery. He claims that an MRI later confirmed a T12 spinal cord infarction as the cause of his paralysis. The suit accuses the doctor of negligence during the surgery and failure to prevent spinal damage, and it contends that the defendants did not fully inform him of the procedure’s risks.

October 25, 2023: Cook County Board Approves Two Significant Settlements

The Cook County Board approved two significant settlements for medical malpractice claims connected to patient deaths at Stroger Hospital. In one case, a $6.75 million settlement will be paid out after a woman who was 35 weeks pregnant did not receive adequate fetal monitoring following a car accident. Despite arriving at the emergency room and reporting no fetal movement since the accident, the lawsuit claimed the hospital staff did not properly monitor the fetal well-being, respond to a problematic CT scan, perform an ultrasound, or correctly place an electronic fetal monitor. This resulted in the baby being stillborn after an emergency cesarean section. An accompanying physician’s testimony suggested that with proper care, the baby could have survived. In a separate case, a $1.8 million settlement was approved for the estate of a deceased patient who was treated for severe aplastic anemia. The lawsuit alleged that the hospital staff failed to adequately monitor the patient while administering a medication called Promacta, leading to liver failure and death.

September 20, 2023: Appeals Panel Affirms $47 Million Verdict

An Illinois appeals panel affirmed a $47 million verdict against Advocate Health concerning a medical malpractice case. Joseph and Christine Browning initiated the lawsuit after Joseph developed sepsis after his gallbladder removal in 2015. The lawsuit alleged the defendants misidentified an intra-abdominal infection leading to severe complications. The hospital did what malpractice defendants do: try to blame the patient.  In this case, they blamed a prior gastric bypass procedure for the complications. A Cook County jury did not buy it.

September 1, 2023: Illinois Law Now Allows For Punitive Damages In Wrongful Death Cases

Illinois law now allows for punitive damages in wrongful death cases.  However, there is an exclusion for medical malpractice claims.

June 18, 2023: Illinois Supreme Court Clarifies Intent Of Legal Provision

Over four decades ago, Illinois implemented a legal provision to streamline medical malpractice suits, allowing plaintiffs to initially name healthcare providers as respondents for discovery before possibly upgrading them to defendants based on evidence. The Illinois Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision in Cleeton v. SIU Healthcare, clarified that this practice, outlined in § 2-402 of the Code of Civil Procedure from 1976, was not meant to hinder the filing of malpractice suits. This came as the court overturned lower court dismissals of a lawsuit by a mother accusing healthcare providers of errors resulting in her son’s death. The law aimed to minimize unwarranted litigation against healthcare providers, but the courts had misinterpreted the evidence threshold needed to convert a respondent to a defendant. The Illinois Supreme Court decision underscored that a plaintiff only needs to show ‘probable cause’ to believe a respondent might be liable, not definitive proof at the discovery stage, thus allowing the mother’s case to proceed to trial.

May 28, 2023: Third District Appeals Court Affirms $2.1 Million Verdict 

The Third District appeals court affirmed a $2.1 million verdict in a wrongful death medical malpractice lawsuit. The opinion rejecting a primary care physician’s appeal to limit damages based on the widower’s remarriage 13 months post his spouse’s death. The court clarified that the case revolved around a statutory cause of action for wrongful death, not the common law action for loss of consortium. This verdict reinforces that damages for loss of marital services don’t necessarily cease upon remarriage, emphasizing a broader interpretation of the Wrongful Death Act and suggesting that damages in such cases should be assessed distinctly from consortium considerations.

---

Contact Us About Illinois Medical Malpractice Cases

If you have a potential medical malpractice case in Illinois, call our malpractice lawyers today for a free consultation. We have a network of local medical malpractice firms in Illinois that we can work with to bring your case and get maximum compensation. Call us today at 800-553-8082 or contact us online.