# Ayala v. Murad

> Appellate Court of Illinois · September 12, 2006 · 305 Ill. Dec. 370

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9707133

## Case

- **Full name:** JOYCE AYALA, Indiv. and as Special Adm’r of the Estate of Michelle Ayala, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TARIQ MURAD Et Al., Defendants-Appellees
- **Court:** Appellate Court of Illinois
- **Decided:** September 12, 2006
- **Citations:** 305 Ill. Dec. 370; 367 Ill. App. 3d 591; 855 N.E.2d 261
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Wolfson
- **Judges:** South, Wolfson
- **Cited by:** 38 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9707133

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that exclusion of relevant evidence is an abuse of discretion where the error was serious and prejudicial
- reasoning that an expert’s ability to testify in general terms is insufficient to establish proximate cause

## Opinion text

PRESIDING JUSTICE WOLFSON, specially concurring:
I agree the trial court committed reversible error when it limited Dr. Goldstein’s testimony, and I agree a new trial is warranted, but I do not agree with the majority’s position on Dr. Young’s stricken testimony concerning whether he would have mentioned cancer and stroma invasion to Michelle Ayala’s gynecological oncologist.
It is true that an expert cannot be asked about his own conduct in order to establish a defendant doctor’s deviation from or adherence to the standard of care. See Glassman v. St. Joseph Hospital, 259 Ill. App. 3d 730 (1994). But that was not the point of the question asked of Dr. Young. Counsel was trying to attack the persuasive value of Dr. Young’s opinions. It was an attack on his credibility. That is permissible. See Gallina v. Watson, 354 Ill. App. 3d 515, 521 (2004). If opposing counsel fears jury misuse of the testimony, a limiting instruction can be used to confine the jury to a proper consideration of the evidence.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9707133. Public record. Not legal advice.