CHICAGO — The Illinois Supreme Court, reversing a state appeals panel’s decision, said there will not be a new trial for the widow of a Joliet man who accused a medical clinic of failing to identify and treat the blood clot that killed her husband in March 2009.
In July 2019, the Illinois Third District Appellate Court reinstated the case of Susan Steed, widow of Glenn Steed Jr., against Rezin Orthopedics and Sports Medicine and physician Stephen Treacy, who treated steed for a torn Achilles tendon.
According to court documents, on Feb. 19 Treacy put Steed’s right leg in a cast that was supposed to stay on for six weeks. Though Treacy indicated the need for a follow-up appointment in two weeks, the clinic scheduled the appointment outside that window. Steed developed deep vein thrombosis, which led to a pulmonary embolism, a medial term for blockage in one of the pulmonary arteries in the lungs. He died March 8.
His widow sued the clinic, but a Will County Circuit Court jury entered judgment in favor of the clinic in November 2016. In February 2017, Steed filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict - essentially asking the judge to overturn the jury's verdit - and seeking a new trial. Will County Judge Theodore Jarz denied that motion. Steed appealed to the Third District, challenging only the judgment favoring Rezin.
The appellate panel said it didn’t know whether the jury issued its verdict “because it found that Rezin Orthopedics did not breach the standard of care or because it found no causal connection between Glenn’s death and the failure to schedule the appointment as instructed.” It ruled Susan Steed is entitled to judgment on liability “where evidence overwhelmingly established that orthopedic treatment facility was negligent in failing to schedule follow-up appointment as ordered by treating physician.”
The panel also ordered a new trial, but to determine damages only.
On appeal of that ruling to the Illinois Supreme Court, Rezin argued the appellate court was wrong to overturn the verdict, claiming “substantial evidence supported the jury’s finding” the clinic didn’t factually or legally cause Steed’s death.
Justice David Overstreet wrote the unanimous opinion filed Jan. 22.
According to the court, judgment notwithstanding verdict is only appropriate in light of overwhelming evidence.
“The appellate court concluded in one paragraph that the evidence at trial showed that, if Glenn had returned to Rezin Orthopedics within two weeks of his initial appointment, the DVT would have likely been diagnosed and treated and, thus, the evidence supported the conclusion that Rezin Orthopedics’ negligence was a proximate cause of Glenn’s death,” Overstreet wrote. “In reaching this conclusion, the appellate court ignored the evidence at trial supporting a reasonable conclusion that the DVT formed after March 3, 2009, and not within the two-week time frame for the prescribed follow-up appointment.”
The Supreme Court pointed to trial evidence that Steed called the clinic within a week of his cast, and that his condition improved thereafter, as well as indications swelling can occur for reasons aside from DVT.
“Glenn’s first significant symptom of a dangerous DVT occurred with thigh pain on March 7, 2009,” Overstreet wrote. “The evidence thus supported a reasonable conclusion that Rezin Orthopedics’ failure to schedule a two-week follow-up appointment was not a substantial factor of Glenn’s death. The appellate court thus improperly substituted its judgment for that of the jury.”
The Supreme Court also said the appeals panel wrongly decided Susan Steed’s negligence claim, indicating “significant expert testimony” at trial that raised questions about the clinic’s role in the death.
“Instead,” Overstreet wrote, “evidence was presented at trial revealing Glenn’s death was so ‘highly extraordinary’ that imposing liability was not justified.”
Overstreet further wrote Steed “failed to meet her burden to establish entitlement to a new trial,” both because the jury’s initial verdict was within reason and also rejecting her argument that Judge Jarz allowed “irrelevant and highly prejudicial evidence.”
The Supreme Court reversed the appellate decision and affirmed the circuit court judgment.
Steed has been represented in the case by attorneys Martin J. Lucas and Lauren Levin Budz, of MDR Law, of Chicago.
Rezin was represented by attorneys Karen Kies DeGrand and Laura Coffey Ieremia with the firm of Donohue Brown Mathewson & Smyth, of Chicago, and Stephen A. Rehfeldt and Marcelline DeFalco, of the firm of Mulherin, Rehfeldt & Varchetto, of Wheaton.