The Illinois Supreme Court court ruled that a couple appealing a decision on one count of their lawsuit is not entitled to a new trial on all counts – and one justice said the court should never have entertained the case at all.
Kristopher and Teri Crim claimed Dr. Gina Dietrich, who delivered the couple’s child, failed to obtain informed consent for a natural childbirth and was negligent in delivering the baby. The child was unusually large and sustained injury during his passage through the birth canal, according to the court decision. The couple claimed that with appropriate prenatal investigation, Dietrich would have realized the child’s size and could have counseled Teri Crim on the risks of a natural birth. Had she known the risks, Teri Crim claimed, she would have opted for a Caesarean section.
When the case went to trial, the court granted Dietrich a directed verdict on the claim of informed consent, bypassing the jury. The trial continued, and a jury later found in the doctor's favor on the negligence claim.
Illinois Supreme Court Justice Lloyd A. Karmeier
| Illinoiscourts.gov
When the Crims appealed, their appeal specifically stated that it targeted only the directed verdict and not the jury verdict. The appellate court reversed the directed verdict and remanded the case. In its decision, the appellate court said it was not considering any part of the trial after the directed verdict, and Dietrich filed a motion to exclude any evidence related to the negligence claim.
The plaintiffs, however, argued the remand should apply to the entire case and they should be granted a new trial on both counts. The circuit court denied the motion, but allowed the parties to pose a certified question to the appellate court asking specifically if the court’s ruling required a new trial by a different court. The appellate court said yes, and Dietrich then appealed to the Illinois Supreme Court.
The state Supreme Court agreed with the appellate court that the Crims forfeited their right to argue the directed verdict when they did not file any post-trial motions. The plaintiffs misinterpreted the first appellate decision to apply to the entire case, the court wrote, when in fact the case incorporates two completely separate judicial decisions, each of which must be appealed separately.
The certified question is legal in nature, the majority held, because it can only be answered by applying interpretation of the law.
“The certified question does not make an improper request for a new interpretation,” Justice Lloyd A. Karmeier wrote for the majority, joined by three other justices. “Answering the certified question will establish the necessary parameters of the new trial and, therefore, materially advance the termination of the litigation.”
Karmeier was joined by justices Rita B. Garman, Mary Jane Theis and P. Scott Neville. Chief Justice Anne M. Burke also concurred with the decision to reverse the appellate court, but for different reasons.
Chief Justice Burke said, in her view, the appellate court overstepped its bounds in rendering any decision on any question pertaining to the jury verdict. In this case, she said, the only matter that had ever been appealed was the directed verdict rendered by the judge at trial.
"There is no basis for reading the appellate court’s mandate as going beyond that," Chief Justice Burke wrote. "Accordingly, I would answer the certified question 'no.'"
The court remanded the informed consent question to the circuit court, but the justices said a new trial on the negligence question is not warranted.
Justice Thomas L. Kilbride dissented from the majority opinion, but not only on the merits of the case. He argued that the case, which came before the court in the form of a certified question under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 308, did not qualify for consideration under the rule.
“In my view, this court improvidently granted the petition for leave to appeal, and the certified question was not a proper use of Rule 308,” Kilbride wrote. “Certified questions are questions of law and may not seek an application of law to the facts of a specific case. …[This] is an entirely case-specific question that could not bear on factual situations other than the one before the court.”
Justice Michael J. Burke took no part in the decision.
The Crims have been represented in the action by attorney Jonathan T. Nessler, of the Law Offices of Fredric W. Nessler & Associates, of Springfield.
Dietrich has been represented by attorneys Craig L. Unrath, Adrian E. Harless and Tyler Robinson, of the firm of Heyl, Royster, Voelker & Allen, of Peoria and Springfield.