# Garley v. Columbia LaGrange Memorial Hospital

> Appellate Court of Illinois · June 30, 2004 · 351 Ill. App. 3d 398

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9743265

## Case

- **Full name:** STEPHEN GARLEY, Indiv. and as Special Adm’r of the Estate of Pauline Garley, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. COLUMBIA LaGRANGE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, Defendant-Appellant (Scott Multack Et Al., Defendants)
- **Court:** Appellate Court of Illinois
- **Decided:** June 30, 2004
- **Citations:** 351 Ill. App. 3d 398; 286 Ill. Dec. 337; 813 N.E.2d 1030
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Hartman
- **Judges:** Quinn, Greiman, Hartman
- **Cited by:** 10 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/9743265

## Opinion text

JUSTICE HARTMAN, dissenting:
I respectfully dissent from the majority disposition reversing the jury’s decision favoring plaintiffs in this case.
The majority author finds that Sullivan v. Edward Hospital, 209 Ill. 2d 100 , 806 N.E.2d 645 (2004) (Sullivan), has established a “bright line” requiring, for this case, that a physician may not testify with respect to the nursing standard of care unless the physician also was a licensed nurse. The concurring author disagrees, citing Wingo v. Rockford Memorial Hospital, 292 Ill. App. 3d 896 , 686 N.E.2d 722 (1997) (Wingo), to the effect that Sullivan never reached the issue of whether a communication between doctor and nurse, or its absence, could be the subject of the physician’s expert opinion as to the nurse’s failure to meet the standard of care required in such cases. I agree with the concurring opinion with respect to its conclusion that Sullivan does not prevent a doctor from testifying as to a nurse’s failure to communicate to the doctor necessary information concerning fulfillment of the doctor’s orders as it affects his patient.
The concurrence goes on to note, however, that the three physicians who testified for plaintiffs did not limit their expert testimony to lack of communication, but also testified to nursing matters other than communications, or lack thereof, contrary to Sullivan, and would concur in the reversal and remandment of this case. Although the concurrence notes that two of the three physicians taught in nursing programs, one of whom assisted in the preparation of a nursing manual, the foundations for their teaching and writing “was not in much depth or detail.”
Clearly, plaintiffs’ physicians who testified as experts as to adequacies of communications between doctors and nurses concerning the patient’s well-being were qualified to give their expert opinions with respect to this subject. The three doctors had over 76 years of experience in working with nurses in various hospital settings and were well qualified to testify concerning what was expected of nurses by way of communications between doctors and nurses. It is unfathomable to regard a doctor who has had to rely on hospital staff to advise him as to the progress, or lack of progress, of a patient he has placed in the hospital for care and treatment as incompetent to testify as an expert in this regard.
With respect to the physicians’ qualifications to testify concerning nursing matters other than communications, dismissed by the concurrence for lack of foundation, no objections to their testimony were timely made at a time when any paucity of foundation could have been cured at thé trial level. Doctors who teach or train nurses at nursing schools have been recognized in other jurisdictions as experts with respect to nursing standards of care violations. Nold v. Binyon, 272 Kan. 87 , 31 P.3d 274 (2001); Hall v. Sacred Heart Medical Center, 100 Wash. App. 53 , 995 P.2d 621 (2000); Hall v. Huff, 957 S.W.2d 90 (Tex. Ct. App. 1997); Haney v. Alexander, 71 N.C. App. 731 , 323 S.E.2d 430 (1984). None of the foregoing authorities have questioned the teaching or training experiences of the physicians testifying as to nursing standards. In Wingo, similarly to the instant case, a board-certified obstetrician and gynecologist, who lectured nurses in various programs and courses, was found qualified to testify with respect to deviations in nursing standards of care. There, as here, defendant’s failure to make a contemporaneous objection at trial was found to be waiver, although the appellate court went on to decide the issue on its merits favorably to plaintiffs.
For the foregoing reasons, I would affirm the jury’s decision in the present case.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9743265. Public record. Not legal advice.