Walski v. Tiesenga

Supreme Court of Illinois · Torts

TortsMedical malpracticeExpert testimonyDirected verdictmedical malpracticestandard of careexpert testimonydirected verdict

Facts

Plaintiff underwent a difficult subtotal thyroidectomy after prior thyroid surgery and radioactive treatment had left scar tissue and distorted anatomical landmarks. During the operation, Dr. Tiesenga identified the right recurrent laryngeal nerve but did not attempt to identify the left nerve, instead making a wide cut to avoid where it might be; Dr. Walsh assisted and agreed that exposing the left nerve was unsafe because of massive scarring and adhesions. After surgery, plaintiff suffered permanent vocal-cord paralysis and related breathing and throat problems. Plaintiff's expert testified that, in his own view, one must identify and preserve the recurrent laryngeal nerves on all occasions, but he did not testify to a generally accepted medical standard requiring that procedure under these circumstances.

Issue

Whether plaintiff presented sufficient evidence of the applicable medical standard of care to allow the malpractice claim to go to the jury. More specifically, the question was whether testimony showing only conflicting personal views about proper surgical technique, without proof of a generally accepted professional standard that defendants violated, was enough to defeat a directed verdict.

Rule

In a medical malpractice case, the plaintiff ordinarily must prove through expert testimony the professional standard of care by which the defendant physician's conduct is to be judged, and then show a deviation from that standard causing injury. Expert testimony is unnecessary only where the negligence is so gross or the treatment so common that laypersons can recognize it, or where another recognized source independently supplies the standard; testimony merely showing that another physician would have used a different method or that doctors disagree does not establish negligence.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Phoenix, Nora Ellison sued Dr. Caleb Mercer after a complicated shoulder surgery left her with lasting nerve damage. Nora's only expert testified, "I always use a different approach in cases like this," but admitted he could not say Dr. Mercer's method was considered improper by surgeons generally.

If Dr. Mercer moves for a directed verdict at the close of Nora's case, how should the court rule?

Explanation. A medical malpractice plaintiff generally must prove the applicable professional standard of care through expert testimony and then show a deviation from that standard. Testimony that the expert personally would have done the procedure differently, without stating that the defendant's method violated an accepted medical standard, is insufficient. With that essential element missing, a directed verdict is proper under the Pedrick standard. (Derived from Walski v. Tiesenga (n.d.).)