Johnson v. Armstrong

Summary

The Illinois Supreme Court addresses the applicability of res ipsa loquitur in a medical negligence action involving femoral nerve damage following hip replacement surgery. The court holds that the Rule 304(a) appeal concerning the surgeon was not properly before the appellate court because res ipsa loquitur is an evidentiary doctrine rather than a separate claim. The court exercises supervisory authority to review the summary judgment involving a surgical technician and analyzes the probability and control elements of res ipsa loquitur.

Holdings

1. No. Res ipsa loquitur is an evidentiary doctrine and not a separate claim or theory of recovery; therefore, summary judgment on the res ipsa loquitur count disposed of only an issue relating to the surviving negligence claim and was not a final judgment appealable under Rule 304(a).
2. Yes. Johnson presented sufficient evidence that the severe and permanent femoral nerve injury ordinarily does not occur absent negligence and that the injury-causing instrumentalities were under the control of Armstrong and Harden. The control element is flexible and did not require Johnson to identify the precise instrumentality or individual actor responsible.
3. No. Once Johnson established both res ipsa loquitur elements under these circumstances, no additional expert testimony concerning Harden's individual standard of care was necessary.

Questions Presented

1. Whether a Rule 304(a) appeal may be taken from summary judgment on a res ipsa loquitur count against a defendant when a specific-negligence count against the same defendant remains pending.
2. Whether Johnson presented sufficient evidence of the probability and control elements of res ipsa loquitur to withstand summary judgment against Harden.
3. Whether a plaintiff pursuing res ipsa loquitur in a medical professional negligence case must present additional expert testimony establishing the individual standard of care for a surgical technician.
4. Whether the Supreme Court should exercise supervisory authority to review Harden's summary judgment as of the date it was orally pronounced because of the timing mismatch between the written judgments.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded