Opinion ID: 2226862
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Dead-Man's Act

Text: On appeal to this court, defendants first argue that the trial court was correct in allowing Dr. Zia's testimony concerning his examination of Richard Hoem. Defendants submit that this testimony was permissible under the Dead-Man's Act because plaintiff waived the bar of the Act by earlier eliciting testimony from her expert witness, Dr. Fintel, about the meaning of Dr. Zia's office notes concerning the October 31, 1988, medical examination and introducing the notes themselves into evidence. The first office note, prepared October 31, 1988, in Dr. Zia's handwriting, states: 10/31/88 AugC spine SXSOB NowTight across chestc exercise No palpitationsor wheeze The other note in question reads as follows: Patient comes for follow-up today. He is complaining of pain and tightness in the upper chest area. This occurs primarily with exertion and does seem to radiate down his arms. He was initially evaluated by Dr. Hubbard for cervical arthritis and arthralgias and this has not been a problem recently. He is having no fevers, chills, sweats, palpitations, heart irregularity, wheezing, sputum production or other complaints. On exam today he has blood pressure 144/100, states this is frequently high on visits to the doctor but is otherwise normal. He does not have any wheezing. The diaphragms appear to move well bilaterally. Cardiac exam is entirely normal. He has no peripheral edema or peripheral findings. Based on the above we have ordered a chest x-ray and asked x-ray to check for diaphragmatic motion. He has had previous left pleural thickening on a somewhat idiopathic basis. We have also ordered a complete pulmonary function with methacholine challenge and possible cardiopulmonary stress test depending on the above. We will call him after the above results and schedule any additional testing that is necessary. Based on the information found in these note, Dr. Fintel, plaintiff's expert in her case in chief, testified that because Hoem complained of chest pains and tightness, Dr. Zia should have explored possible heart problems. During defendants' case in chief, Dr. Zia testified that Hoem did not complain of chest pain during this October 1988 visit. Dr. Zia testified as follows: [Defense Counsel]: I think I had asked you, Doctor, did Mr. Hoem say the reason he was back? [Dr. Zia]: Yes, he did. [Defense Counsel]: What did he say? [Dr. Zia]: As Mrs. Hoem had mentioned earlier, he had come back for a follow up on his lung condition and his shortness of breath. [Defense Counsel]: What did Mr. Hoem tell you by way of history, Doctor? [Dr. Zia]: His symptoms he mentioned began about August and there was a C spine symptom; that was my abbreviated way of describing it. Pain which was C spine pain, in the back of the neck, and tightness in the posterior thorax or back of the chest upper chest, just below the neck. That symptom did seem to radiate into his arms, as many people have described. He did notice it more with exertion   . He said that this symptom had already been evaluated, had initially been evaluated by Dr. Hubbard because someone had told him he had cervical spine muscular spasm symptoms, that medicine being Flexeril as documented in our medication list. And he said that that worked and that had not been a problem recently. The chest, posterior chest tightness, neck pain going down his arm[,] had not been a problem recently. The appellate court found that this testimony was improperly admitted, in violation of the Dead-Man's Act. We disagree. The Dead-Man's Act provides: In the trial of any action in which any party sues or defends as the representative of a deceased person   , no adverse party or person directly interested in the action shall be allowed to testify on his or her own behalf to any conversation with the deceased    or to any event which took place in the presence of the deceased   , except in the following instances: (a) If any person testifies on behalf of the representative to any conversation with the deceased    or to any event which took place in the presence of the deceased   , any adverse party or interested person, if otherwise competent, may testify concerning the same conversation or event. (Ill.Rev.Stat.1991, ch. 110, par. 8-201.) We find that the testimony of Dr. Fintel and the introduction of Dr. Zia's office notes opened the door to Dr. Zia's testimony. During Dr. Fintel's direct examination, the following took place: [Plaintiff's counsel]: Doctor, did you formulate any opinions to a reasonable degree of medical certainty based upon your review of Plaintiff's Exhibit A, pages 1, and 37, as well as based on the results of the x-ray and other tests that were notations for the day of October 31, 1988? [Dr. Fintel]: Yes, I have. [Plaintiff's counsel]: Doctor, what is it in those records that leads you to express the opinion that Mr. Hoem had exertional chest pain? [Dr. Fintel]: I base this on reading what is a very well-documented and legible typed note, that which we all see on our right. Looking at the second line where I read, `he,' referred to Mr. Hoem, `is complaining of pain and tightness in the upper chest area. This occurs primarily with exertion and does seem to radiate down his arms.' That to me suggests that Dr. Zia recognized that the principal reason why the patient came to the office for evaluation was for evaluation and treatment of this problem. From these statements, it may be argued that Dr. Fintel is merely interpreting the note. He is, however, doing more than that. Rather than merely translating Dr. Zia's note for the benefit of the jury. Dr. Fintel has put his gloss on the notes. Taking Dr. Fintel's statements together, he is clearly insinuating that Hoem visited Dr. Zia specifically for the treatment of a heart related problem. Under these facts, we find that Dr. Fintel's testimony fails within subsection (a) of the Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1991, ch. 110, par. 8-201(a)) and that plaintiff has waived the bar of the Dead-Man's Act. The purpose of the Dead-Man's Act is to remove the temptation of the survivor to a transaction to testify falsely and to equalize the positions of the parties in regard to the giving of testimony. (M. Graham, Cleary & Graham's Handbook of Illinois Evidence § 606.1, at 314-15 (5th ed. 1990).) In this case, allowing the representative of the deceased to introduce her version of why Hoem went to Dr. Zia, without giving an equal opportunity to Dr. Zia, would not advance the policy behind the Act. Under these circumstances, we find it fundamentally unfair to deny Dr. Zia an opportunity to explain his view of what happened. Left unchallenged, Dr. Fintel's comments would have remained with the jury as the only testimony regarding the conversation between Dr. Zia and Hoem.