Court Opinion

ID: 9745586
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 23:11:41.242908+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:25:02.731697
License: Public Domain

Mr. PRESIDING JUSTICE STOUDER dissenting: I do not agree with the majority of the court. My disagreement is limited to the majority’s affirmation of the trial court’s dismissal of Count 8. Because the facts set forth in the majority opinion are fairly adequate, the only additional facts which I shall recite are those necessary to my conclusions. The issue in this case is when the evidence is considered in its most favorable aspect to the plaintiff was there a total failure to prove any necessary element of her case? The evidence may not be weighed, and all contradictory evidence must be rejected. (Graham v. St. Luke’s Hospital, 40 Ill.App.2d 147, 196 N.E.2d 355 and Pedrick V Peoria & E. RR. Co., 37 Ill.2d 494, 229 N.E.2d 504.) I believe my colleagues have not consistently applied the foregoing rule. Inferences favorable to plaintiff’s claims have been ignored and disputed inferences have been resolved in favor of the defendants. In paragraphs 6 and 7 of Count 8 the plaintiff alleged specific acts of negligence against the defendant Proctor Community Hospital. Paragraph 6 of Count 8 alleges that both defendants knew of the potential complications if the I.V. solutions together with additives were to infiltrate into the perivascular tissue of the plaintiff’s right arm. Paragraph 7 alleges that defendants failed to properly supervise the I.V. feeding and the plaintiff’s complaints of severe pain and swelling were not heeded by either of the defendants. The plaintiff testified that, on the night in question shortly after the lights were turned out, she began suffering terrible pain in her right arm. A call for help by turning on a light was answered by a nurse’s aide. The aide informed her that she would see what she could do, left and never returned. The plaintiff was not attended to until 1 A.M. Although the plaintiff did not note the time it seems likely that she laid in pain for quite a while. Frieda Haley, a nursing supervisor at the defendant hospital, testified that it was the nurses duty to answer the patient’s lights. She further stated that it is the duty of the nurse to make periodic checks during an I.V. injection and observe the area where the needle is going in to see that the fluid is running. “If a patient complains of pain at the injection site, the I.V. feeding should be discontinued immediately”. Defendant Cannon testified that he was aware of the occurrence of extravasation during I.V. feedings and stated that the I.V. should be immediately terminated subsequent to a complaint of pain. The pain could have been caused by the additive Sparine seeping through the wall of the veins or outside the blood vessels due to a breakdown in their walls. Two other doctors corroborated this testimony. The testimony clearly shows that both defendants knew of the potential complications of administering I.V. solutions with additives and certainly a jury could conclude a lack of proper supervision from the plaintiff’s testimony. In paragraphs 6 and 7 of Count 8 the plaintiff alleged specific acts of negligence against the defendant, Dr. Cannon. I believe that the plaintiff presented enough evidence in her case in chief in support of the allegations to justify a jury to return a verdict in her behalf. Defendant Cannon testified that his familiarity with the additive Sparine and its side effects was basically limited to the cautionary instructions accompaning the bottle: “Care should be exercised during intravenous administration not to allow perivascular extravastion since under the circumstances chemical irritation may be severe.” In spite of the fact that he was aware that extravasation has occurred during intravenous feedings, he did not advise anyone of the cautionary instructions when he gave the order to inject Sparine into the plaintiff’s arm. The requirements for expert testimony were fulfilled when the defendant Cannon testified to the instructions. The requirement for expert evidence is not limited to oral testimony. The cautionary instructions certainly should have alerted the defendant Cannon to the risks involved and the precautions to take. Dr. Palmer corroborated the importance of the instructions by testifying that he usually gives instructions to watch a patient more closely when additives are present in the I.V. solution. Dr. Cannon stated that the pain suffered by the plaintiff could have been caused by the additive Sparine seeping through the walls of the veins or outside the blood vessels due to a breakdown in their walls. Dr. Palmer testified that Sparine might cause a breakdown in the blood vessel wall and cause the vessel to leak into the surrounding tissue. The testimony of the two doctors concerning leakage is prima facie evidence that the plaintiff’s injury was caused by the Sparine. Dr. Swearinger, a physician who treated the plaintiff subsequent to her injmy, testified that it was his opinion “that the medicine that was in the bottle infiltrated into the tissue surrounding the vein either by the needle not being in the vein or medication infiltrated through the wall of the vein.” Based on the testimony and other evidence presented by plaintiff in support of Count 8 the trial court erred in directing a verdict in favor of defendants in Count 8.