Opinion ID: 1648512
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: jodene verbracken

Text: ¶ 51. Jodene Verbracken was Northwest's case manager for Carney-Hayes and had previously been a direct caregiver for her. She must testify as to her own conduct in preparing the Northwest plan of care for Carney-Hayes. She must testify regarding references she used in preparing that plan and why she felt the plan was appropriate for Carney-Hayes. If relevant, she must testify about her past care of the plaintiff. However, she cannot be forced to testify to the general standard of care for preparing a similar plan of care, nor may she be forced to testify whether she believes Avery's conduct conformed to the standard of care. ¶ 52. We tend to see Verbracken as an Alt witness. Like Dr. Acosta and Dr. Koh, Verbracken had provided direct care to the patient but was not present at the time of the unfortunate incident. Her expert opinion is not unique or irreplaceable. No exceptional circumstances require her testimony. [8] ¶ 53. Verbracken is not accused of causal negligence. In discovery, the plaintiff obtained the plan of care that Verbracken prepared for Carney-Hayes and Verbracken must explain that plan of care. Verbracken is not a unique or irreplaceable witness for establishing the standard of care for such plans. ¶ 54. Although a case manager may be negligent in preparing a plan of care, it is not evident from the limited record before us whether Carney-Hayes is alleging that Verbracken negligently prepared the care plan. We are unwilling to permit the mere possibility of such an allegation to transform a normal Alt witness into a Shurpit witness and require that witness to assume burdens beyond the burden of being a fact witness. ¶ 55. An Alt witness who is unwilling to testify as an expert may not be compelled to answer a hypothetical question aimed at establishing the witness's perception of her own standard of care or a general standard of care. Such a question would be akin to the question we held impermissible in Alt: whether a gush of blood is abnormal under any circumstances in an expectant mother with a history of term pregnancy. It can often be transposed into the standard of care applicable to another person, pitting one against the other. ¶ 56. We note that impermissible questions about the standard of care, phrased hypothetically or otherwise, may easily be transformed into permissible questions about the specific conduct of the medical witness. For example, plaintiff's counsel asked Verbracken the following impermissible question: Q: Does the standard of care require that this care plan be reviewed and periodically updated? ¶ 57. The question would have been permissible if plaintiff's counsel had instead asked: Q: Did you periodically update and review the care plan for Amanda Carney-Hayes? In fact, plaintiff's counsel askedand Verbracken answereda similar question: Q: And does Northwest require that this care plan be reviewed and updated on some periodic basis? A: Yes. Q: How frequently is the care plan, first of all, to be reviewed? A: I don't recall for sure, but I believe it was on a monthly basis. ¶ 58. After a medical witness has described her own conduct, the plaintiff may establish the applicable standard of care through independent experts, and then show that the person's conduct did not meet that standard. Thus, hypothetically, if the plaintiff's experts established that a care plan should be reviewed weekly, Verbracken's testimony quoted in the preceding paragraph would show that Northwest's monthly updates did not satisfy the standard of care. ¶ 59. On the basis of the record in front of us, the circuit court erred in requiring Verbracken to answer questions about the standard of care with respect to the plan of care, its preparation, its maintenance, and how it should be followed. Nonetheless, in light of this decision, we remand this case to the circuit court so that the plaintiff has the opportunity to allege that Verbracken is a Shurpit witness because she was negligent or the plan of care she prepared was defective.