SPRINGFIELD – Reversal of a judge’s verdict for a doctor on one claim at trial didn’t wipe out a jury verdict for the doctor on a separate claim, the Illinois Supreme Court ruled on April 2.
The Justices found appellate judges improperly granted Kristopher Crim and Teri Crim a new trial against physician Gina Dietrich of Quincy on both claims.
The Crims sued Dietrich in 2006, claiming she negligently failed to obtain informed consent for natural birth and negligently delivered son Collin in 2005.
At trial in 2015, former Adams County judge Mark Drummond directed a verdict on negligence before delivery due to lack of expert testimony.
He continued trial on negligent delivery, and jurors found in Dietrich’s favor.
The Crims filed an appeal at the Fourth District in Springfield, expressly stating they didn’t base it on the jury verdict.
In 2016, Fourth District judges found Drummond committed an error but failed to specify whether he should hold trial on one claim or two.
Dietrich forced the issue by moving to bar testimony on negligent delivery.
Drummond denied the motion but certified the question to the Fourth District.
There, the Crims argued that Drummond’s verdict tainted the jury verdict.
Dietrich argued that the Crims forfeited any challenge to the jury’s verdict by failing to file a motion for relief.
In 2018, Fourth District judges told Drummond to hold trial on all issues.
They explained that they based their earlier decision on the first issue they considered, the directed verdict.
“We did not limit the issue in the new trial, and we did not address relevant issues presented to us on appeal,” they wrote.
They found Drummond’s verdict changed the tenor of the entire trial.
Dietrich sought relief at the Supreme Court, where the Illinois Association of Defense Trial Counsel provided support as friend of the court.
Richard Burgland and Donald Eckler of Chicago wrote for the association that Drummond lost jurisdiction to modify the verdict after 30 days.
They wrote that the rule requiring post trial motions allows a judge to review decisions without the pressure of trial.
They wrote that it allows a reviewing court to ascertain from the record whether the trial court had adequate opportunity to reassess rulings.
They wrote that it prevents litigants from making arguments on appeal that the trial judge was never given an opportunity to consider.
The Illinois Trial Lawyers Association, supporting the Crims as friend of the court, predicted chaos, prolonged litigation, and delays or denials of justice.
Association counsel Lawrence Kream wrote, “The erroneous granting of a directed verdict did not happen in a vacuum.
“It took issues away from the jury’s consideration that it had been told since the start of the trial were for it to decide.”
He wrote that the power of a court to correct misunderstandings about issues to be tried on remand should not depend on whether a litigant filed a post trial motion.
The Justices disagreed.
“There are sound policy reasons behind the requirement that a litigant file a post trial motion following a jury case,” Justice Lloyd Karmeier wrote for the majority.
“First and foremost, this court has long favored the correction of errors at the circuit court level.”
He wrote that failure to file a post trial motion “undermined any notion of fairness to defendant on appeal.”
“Plaintiffs are essentially arguing that the circuit court erred by allowing the jury trial to continue after it entered the partial directed verdict,” Karmeier wrote.
He found the record devoid of argument before the circuit court that the claims were intertwined.
“It was not until the case was transmitted back to circuit court on remand did plaintiffs argue that the jury’s verdict should be set aside,” he wrote.
“Plaintiffs’ arguments before this court highlight exactly the reason why it is incumbent upon a party to raise their concerns of trial error at the trial level and allow the circuit court the opportunity to address those errors in the first instance.”
Justices Rita Garman, Mary Jane Theis, and Scott Neville concurred.
Chief Justice Anne Burke specially concurred.
“An erroneous directed verdict is not a trial error or an error prior to the entry of judgment,” Burke wrote. “Rather, a directed verdict is itself a judgment.”
She wrote that when the appellate court reversed Drummond, “it was necessarily referring to the directed verdict since the only matter the appellate court addressed was the informed consent claim.”
Dissenting Justice James Kilbride objected to the majority’s exercise of jurisdiction.
“This is an entirely case specific question. It is important to the parties in the case, but it is not of general importance,” Kilbride wrote.
“The certified question was directed to the very court that issued the mandate in question, and that court has provided an answer.”
Craig Unrath of the Heyl Royster firm in Peoria argued for Dietrich in association with Adrian Harless and Tyler Robinson from the firm’s Springfield office.
David A. Axelrod of Chicago argued for the Crims in association with Matthew Axelrod of Chicago and Jonathan Nessler of Springfield.