Jury Instructions-IL > Medical Malpractice > Birth Deformity – Shoulder Dystocia – Defense Verdict

Jada Moore, a Minor,  and Erica Lyles-Moore and James Moore, as Parents and Next Friends, and Individually,  v. University of Chicago Medical Center and Dr. Maura Quinlan  08L10736

Birth Deformity – Shoulder Dystocia – Sole Proximate Cause – Special Interrogatory

Shoulder dystocia noted during labor causing brachial plexus injury allegedly due to improper manual lateral or rotational traction of the head causing spinal nerve avulsion resulting in an unusable, limp arm and deformities. The defendants countered that the injury was caused by the natural maternal force of delivery or a rare anomaly. Jury verdict in 2012 in favor of the defendants.

===============================================================

IPI 1.01 – Modified by the court to be read at end of case,  and updated by IPI Committee in 2009 to include old IPI 3.01 language)

            Now that the evidence has concluded, I will further instruct you as to the law and your duties.  The law regarding this case is contained in the instructions I will give to you.  You must consider the Court’s instructions as a whole, not picking out some instructions and disregarding others.

            It is your duty to resolve this case by determining the facts and following the law given in the instructions. Your verdict must not be based upon speculation, prejudice, or sympathy. Each party, whether a corporation or an individual,  should receive your same fair consideration.

            I have not meant to indicate any opinion as to the facts of this case by any of my rulings, remarks, or instructions.

            You will decide what facts have been proven. Facts may be proven by evidence or reasonable inferences drawn from the evidence. Evidence consists of the testimony of witnesses and of exhibits admitted by the court. You should consider all the evidence without regard to which party produced it. You may use common sense gained from your experiences in life in evaluating what you see and hear during trial.

            You are the only judges of the credibility of the witnesses. You will decide the weight to be given to the testimony of each of them. In evaluating the credibility of a witness you may consider that witness’ ability and opportunity to observe, memory, manner, interest, bias, qualifications, experience, and any previous inconsistent statement or act by the witness concerning an issue important to the case.

            The use of cell phones, text messaging, Internet postings and Internet access devices in connection with your deliberations violates the rules of evidence and you are prohibited from using them

            You must make your decision based on what you recall of the evidence. You will not receive a written transcript of the testimony when you retire to the jury room.

            An opening statement is what an attorney expects the evidence will be. A closing argument is given at the conclusion of the case and is a summary of what an attorney contends the evidence has shown. If any statement or argument of an attorney is not supported by the law or the evidence you should disregard that statement.

IPI 2.01 – Evidence Deposition

            The testimony of Dr. Rahul Nath was presented on videotape to the jury. You should give his testimony the same consideration you would give it had he personally appeared in court to testify in person.

IPI 3.02 Witness Who Has Been Interviewed by Attorney

            An attorney may, if a witness agrees, interview a witness to learn what testimony will be given. Such an interview, by itself, does not reflect adversely on the truth of the testimony of the witness.

3.03 Insurance

            Whether a party is insured has no bearing whatever on any issue that you must decide. You must refrain from any inference, speculation, or discussion about insurance.

            If you find for the plaintiff, you shall not speculate about or consider any possible sources of benefits the plaintiff may have received or might receive.  After you have returned you verdict, the court will make whatever adjustments are necessary in this regard.       

IPI 3.04 Circumstantial Evidence

A fact or a group of facts, may, based on logic and common sense, lead you to a conclusion as to other facts. This is known as circumstantial evidence. A fact may be proved by circumstantial evidence. For example, if you are in a building and a person enters who is wet and is holding an umbrella, you might conclude that it was raining outside. Circumstantial evidence is entitled to the same consideration as any other type of evidence.

IPI 3.08 – Opinion Testimony

You have heard witnesses give opinions about matters requiring knowledge and skill. You should judge their testimony in the same way you judge the testimony from any other witness. The fact that such persons have given opinions does not mean that you are required to accept them. Give the testimony whatever weight you think it deserves, considering the reasons given for the opinion, the witness’ qualifications, and all of the other evidence in the case

12.05 Negligence—Intervention of Outside Agency

If you decide that the defendant was negligent and that this negligence was a proximate cause of injury to the plaintiff, it is not a defense that something else may also have been a cause of the injury.

However, if you decide that the sole proximate cause of injury to the plaintiff was something other than the conduct of the defendant, then your verdict should be for the defendant.

IPI 15.01 Proximate Cause

When I use the expression “proximate cause,” I mean any cause which, in natural or probable sequence, produced the injury complained of. It need not be the only cause, nor the last or nearest cause. It is sufficient if it concurs with some other cause acting at the same time, which in combination with it, causes the injury.

IPI 20.01 – ISSUES – Negligence

The Plaintiffs in this case are:             Jada Moore, a Minor,  and Erica and James Moore, as Parents and Individually

The Defendants in this case are:         University of Chicago Medical Center and Dr. Maura Quinlan

The plaintiffs claim that Jada Moore was injured  and that the defendant, Dr. Maura Quinlan was negligent in one or more of the following respects:

1. Failed to properly determine which way Jada Moore’s chest was facing before manipulating her head; or
2. Applied excessive lateral traction and/or rotation traction to the head of Jada Moore.

The plaintiffs further claims that one or more of the foregoing was a proximate cause of the injuries to Jada Moore.

The defendants deny that they did any of the things claimed by the plaintiffs, deny that they were negligent in doing any of the things claimed by the plaintiffs and deny that any claimed act or omission on the part of the defendants was a proximate cause of the claimed injuries to Jada Moore.

The defendants further deny that Jada Moore was injured or sustained damages to the extent claimed.

IPI 21.01 – BURDEN OF PROOF

When I say that a party has the burden of proof on any proposition, or use the expression “if you find,” or “if you decide,” I mean you must be persuaded, considering all the evidence in the case, that the proposition on which a party has the burden of proof is more probably true than not true.

IPI 21.02 – BURDEN – NO COMPARATIVE

The plaintiffs have the burden of proving each of the following propositions:

First, that the defendants acted or failed to act in one of the ways claimed by the plaintiffs as stated to you in these instructions and that in so acting, or failing to act, the defendants were negligent;

Second, that Jada Moore suffered injuries or damages;

Third, that the negligence of the defendant was a proximate cause of Jada Moore’s  injuries or damages.

If you find from your consideration of all the evidence that each of these propositions has been proved, then your verdict should be for the plaintiffs.

On the other hand, if you find from your consideration of all the evidence that any of these propositions has not been proved, then your verdict should be for the defendant.

IPI 30.01 et seq Damage Instructions, Measure of Damages

If you decide for the plaintiffs on the question of liability, you must then fix the amount of money which will reasonably and fairly compensate Jada Moore for any of the following elements of damages proved by the evidence to have resulted from the negligence of the defendant, taking into consideration the nature, extent and duration of the injury.

The disfigurement resulting from the injury.

The disability experienced and reasonably certain to be experienced in the future as a result of the injury.

Pain and suffering experienced and reasonably certain to be experienced in the future as a result of the injuries

The past expenses of necessary medical care, treatment, and services received.      

The present cash value of the reasonable expenses of necessary medical care, treatment and services reasonably certain to be received in the future.                                             

The present cash value of earnings and benefits reasonable certain to be lost in the future after Jada Moore reaches the age of eighteen.

Whether any of these elements of damages has been proved by the evidence is for you to determine.

IPI 31.09 Action Personal Representative/Modified for a Minor

The Plaintiffs in this case are:             Jada Moore, a Minor,  and Erica and James Moore, as Parents and Individually

The Defendants in this case are:         University of Chicago Medical Center and Dr. Maura Quinlan

The plaintiffs, Erica and James Moore, bring this action in a representative capacity by reason of being the parents of Jada Moore, a minor.

However, Jada Moore is the real party in interest in this lawsuit, and in that sense, she is the real plaintiff whose damages you are to determine if you decide for Erica and James Moore in their representative capacity as Parents of Jada Moore, a minor.

IPI 34.01/4 Damages Arising in the Future—Extent and Amount Modified/combined

If you find that the plaintiffs are entitled to damages arising in the future because of injuries, you must determine the amount of these damages which will arise in the future.

If these damages are of a continuing nature, you may consider how long they will continue. If these damages are permanent in nature, then in computing these damages you may consider how long Jada Moore is likely to live.           

According to a table of mortality in evidence, the life expectancy of a person aged 9 is 69 years. This figure is not conclusive. It is the average life expectancy of persons who have reached the age of 9. It may be considered by you in connection with other evidence relating to the probable life expectancy of Jada Moore in this case, including evidence of her health, habits, and other activities, bearing in mind that some persons live longer and some persons less than the average.

With respect to a loss of future earnings, you may consider that some persons work all their lives and others do not; that a person’s earnings may remain the same or may increase or decrease in the future.

IPI 34.02 Damages Arising in the Future—Discount to Present Cash Value

In computing the damages arising in the future because of future medical and caretaking expenses or because of the loss of  future earnings and benefits, you must determine their present cash value. “Present cash value” means the sum of money needed now, which, when added to what that sum may reasonably be expected to earn in the future, will equal the amount of the expenses and earnings and benefits at the time in the future when the expenses must be paid or the earnings and  benefits would have been received.

Damages for pain and suffering, disability and disfigurement are not reduced to present cash value.

IPI.36.01 In Absence of Liability—No Occasion to Consider Damages

If you decide for a defendant on the question of liability, you will have no occasion to consider the question of damages as to the defendant.

IPI 50.01 Both Principal and Agent Sued—No Issue as to Agency

The defendants are sued as principal and agent. The defendant University of Chicago Medical Center is the principal and the defendant Dr. Maura Quinlan is its agent. If you find that the defendant Dr. Maura Quinlan is liable, then you must find that the defendant University of Chicago Medical Center  is also liable.

However, if you find that Dr. Maura Quinlan  is not liable, then you must find that

University of Chicago Medical Center is not liable.

IPI 105.01 Duty of a Non–Specialist Professional—Professional Negligence

An Obstetrician must possess and use the knowledge, skill, and care ordinarily used by a reasonably well-qualified Obstetrician.  The failure to do something that a reasonably well-qualified Obstetrician would do, or the doing of something that a reasonably well-qualified Obstetrician  would not do, under circumstances similar to those shown by the evidence, is “professional negligence”.

The phrase “deviation from the standard of care” means the same thing as “professional negligence”.  

The law does not say how a reasonably well qualified Obstetrician  would act under these circumstances. That is for you to decide.

In reaching your decision, you must rely upon opinion testimony from qualified witnesses. You must not attempt to determine how a reasonably well-qualified  Obstetrician  would act from any personal knowledge you may have

IPI   B45.01 – FORMS OF VERDICT

When you retire to the jury room you will first select a foreperson. He or she will preside during your deliberations.

Your verdict must be unanimous.

Forms of verdicts are supplied with these instructions. After you have reached your verdict, fill in and sign the appropriate form of verdict and return it to the court. Your verdict must be signed by each of you. You should not write or mark upon this or any of the other instructions given to you by the court.

The Plaintiffs in this case are:             Jada Moore, a Minor,  and Erica and James Moore, as Parents and Individually

The Defendants in this case are:         University of Chicago Medical Center and Dr. Maura Quinlan

If you find for the Plaintiffs and against Defendants, then you should use Verdict Form A.

If you find for all of the Defendants and against the Plaintiffs, then you should use Verdict Form B.

A “Special Interrogatory” is supplied with these instructions. After you have reached a verdict, fill in and sign the Special Interrogatory and return it to the court along with the forms of verdict. The Special Interrogatory must be signed by each of you.

VERDICT FORM A

We, the jury, find for the Plaintiffs and against the Defendants. We assess the

damages in the sum of  $________________________________________________,

itemized as follows:

     Disfigurement resulting from the injury.                           $_________________

     Disability experienced and reasonably certain to be

     experienced in the future as a result of the injury.             $_________________

     Pain and suffering experienced and reasonably certain to

     be experienced in the future as a result of the injuries.      $_________________

     Past expenses of necessary medical care, treatment, and 

     services received.                                                               $_________________

     Present cash value of the reasonable expenses of

     necessary medical care, treatment and services reasonably

     certain to be received in the future.                                   $_________________

     Present cash value of earnings and benefits reasonable

     certain to be lost in the future after Jada Moore reaches

     the age of eighteen.                                                            $_________________

 [Signature Lines ]

—————————————————–   —————————————————-

(Foreperson

—————————————————–        —————————————————-

—————————————————–    —————————————————-

—————————————————–     —————————————————

—————————————————–     —————————————————

—————————————————–     —————————————————

VERDICT FORM B

We, the jury, find for the Defendants and against the Plaintiffs.

[Signature Lines ]

—————————————————–   —————————————————-

(Foreperson

—————————————————–        —————————————————-

—————————————————–    —————————————————-

—————————————————–     —————————————————

—————————————————–     —————————————————

—————————————————–     —————————————————

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY

Was the sole proximate cause of Jada Moore’s injury something other than the conduct of Dr. Maura Quinlan?

 

YES __________                   NO ____________

—————————————————–   —————————————————-

(Foreperson)

—————————————————–      —————————————————–

—————————————————–   —————————————————-

—————————————————–      —————————————————–

—————————————————–   —————————————————-

—————————————————–      —————————————————–