"Before a medical negligence case * * * can reach a jury, a plaintiff must [establish] the standard of care against which the conduct of the defendant doctor may be measured." (citing Walski v. Tiesenga, 72 Ill.2d 249, 255, 21 Ill.Dec. 201, 381 N.E.2d 279 (1978))
How later courts described this case
- "Before a medical negligence case * * * can reach a jury, a plaintiff must [establish] the standard of care against which the conduct of the defendant doctor may be measured." (citing Walski v. Tiesenga, 72 Ill.2d 249, 255, 21 Ill.Dec. 201, 381 N.E.2d 279 (1978))
- “Before a medical negligence case *** can reach a jury, a plaintiff must [establish] *** the standard of care against which the conduct of the defendant doctor may be measured.” (citing Walski v. Tiesenga, 72 Ill. 2d 249, 255 (1978))
- where plaintiffs' medical expert was not qualified to testify against defendant doctor, the circuit court properly granted motion to dismiss
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
JUSTICE WOLFSON, specially concurring:
I write this special concurrence only to express my disagreement with a small portion of the majority opinion.
We should apply an abuse of discretion standard to the trial court’s decision to bar Dr. Gomez’s testimony against Dr. Joyce. To reach the conclusion that Dr. Gomez was not qualified to testify the trial court had to review Dr. Gomez’s deposition and voir dire testimony. The trial court weighed the testimony and made an evidentiary ruling. It was not a ruling based on “documentary evidence,” as it was in Townsend v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 227 Ill. 2d 147, 154 (2007).