|
Illinois Good Samaritan Act Immunity: Evolving Concepts
The Parable of the Good Samaritan is a biblical story of a stranger who had been robbed, stripped and severely beaten. Many people passed by the man ignoring his plight. Ultimately, the Good Samaritan came to his assistance. For centuries the Good Samaritan has come to symbolize selfl ess volunteerism.
Contact for more information: J. Marc Forkins
Indiana’s Good Samaritan Law
Indiana’s Good Samaritan law is straightforward and has not been extensively examined by Indiana appellate courts. However, there are a few key issues with regard to it that pertain to health care professionals.
Contact for more information: Scott B. Cockrum
Federal Estate Tax Repeal Update
Unless Congress takes action, the federal estate tax will be automati-cally repealed in 2010. Although Congress has signaled that it does not intend to allow the repeal to occur, it is running out of time. With so much on its plate already, Congress will hard-pressed to resolve this issue by December 31. Because there may not be enough time to negotiate a permanent solution, the legislature may simply vote to extend the federal estate tax as applicable in 2009 for one more year. Under the current federal estate tax, $3.5 million of value is exempt, and the maximum federal tax rate is 45 percent.
Contact for more information: Stephen A. Frost
Hinshaw Representative Matters
Each issue of the Medical Malpractice Newsletter will showcase a few casesthat have recently been handled by Hinshaw lawyers. We are pleased to report the following:
Thomas R. Mulroy, III & Diane E. Webster, attorneys in Hinshaw’s Chicago office, recently tried a difficult medical malpractice case for a high-profile physician in Chicago. Plaintiff asked the jury for $1.5 million. The jury deliberated for 36 minutes (a period which included the jury’s lunchtime) before rendering a verdict in favor of the physician.
In Knight vs. Van Matre Health HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital (Winnebago County, Illinois), Jeffry S. Spears & Kelly J. Varsho, attorneys in Hinshaw’s Rockford, Illinois, office, prevailed on a motion to dismiss with prejudice under 735 ILCS 5/2-622. That statute provides that a plaintiff in a medical malpractice action must file a report from a reviewing health professional stating that there is a reasonable and meritorious cause for filing the action. It allows a plaintiff 90 days after filing the complaint to file the required report, where he or she was unable to obtain the report due to an impending expiration of the statute of limitations. Prior to 2005, courts regularly allowed additional extensions of time for “good cause.” The 2005 amendments, however, added that “no additional 90-day extensions shall be granted . . .” In Knight, plaintiff invoked the 90-day grace period upon filing the complaint, but did not file the report within that timeframe. Immediately after the 90-days passed, Hinshaw filed a motion to dismiss with prejudice. Plaintiff consequently moved for an extension, and later fi led her review-ing health professional report (without leave of court) on the date of the hearing on the motion to dismiss. Although plaintiff submitted an affi davit of “good cause” for an extension and tendered a proper report within 20 days of the 90-day due date, the trial court agreed with Hinshaw’s argument that the courts no longer have authority to grant any further extensions. The court granted dismissal with prejudice on September 30, 2009. Plaintiff has appealed.
Michael E. O’Neill & Jeremy W. Willett, attorneys in Hinshaw’s Schererville, Indiana, office, recently prevailed in two reported appeals. The first case, Blaker v. Ronald Young, M.D. and Indianapolis Neurosurgical Group, 911 N.E.2d 648 (Marion County, Indiana), involved a patient who sued a surgeon and neurosurgical practice, alleging medical malpractice. The superior court, entered summary judgment in favor of defendants after plaintiff’s experts only offered a hypothetical opinion on malpractice. On appeal, the appellate court held that expert witnesses’ opinion that defendant violated the standard of care “if” he failed to identify a major blood vessel during patient’s brain surgery failed to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact on the question of breach. It also concluded that any error in the trial court’s exclusion of the patient’s supplemental evidence on the issue of proximate cause was harmless.
The second case, Yedlowski v. Marvin Miller, M.D., __ N.E.2d __, 2009 WL3754021 (Marion County, Indiana), was a medical negligence action brought by the parents of 17-year-old patient who died during a hospital stay. Defendant was the patient’s treating doctor in the hospital. The medical review panel issued a unanimous decision in favor of the doctor, who subsequently moved for summary judgment. Plaintiffs twice moved for enlargement of the time to respond, and obtained it. Hinshaw filed a motion to strike plaintiffs’ response to the motion for summary judgment as untimely. The superior court denied both the motion to strike and the doctor’s motion for summary judgment. Holding that the superior court lacked discretion to grant the second and untimely request for enlargement of time to fi le the response to the motion for summary judgment, the appellate court reversed and remanded the case.
Dawn A. Sallerson of Hinshaw’s Belleville, Illinois, office was successful in obtaining a dismissal with prejudice of a radiologist in a case involving an infant allegedly suffering and dying from respiratory distress due to an incorrectly sized and malpositioned endotracheal tube. Additionally, Ms. Sallerson defended an action brought against a medical clinic wherein plaintiff alleged that after she was diagnosed with a phyllode tumor the employed surgeon failed to explain to her the available options for dealing with it. Plaintiff contended that had she known that she did not need a mastectomy, she would not have proceeded with the surgery for it and therefore would not have lost her breast. Ms. Sallerson was successful in obtaining summary judgment in favor of her client on the basis that plaintiff had failed to disclose in her bankruptcy proceedings that she held an action against the clinic for medical malpractice.
This newsletter has been prepared by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. It is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. |