{ "id": 3832446, "name": "PHILLIP MATUSZAK et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. GERALD CERNIAK et al., Defendants-Appellees", "name_abbreviation": "Matuszak v. Cerniak", "decision_date": "2004-02-25", "docket_number": "No. 3-02-0320", "first_page": "766", "last_page": "775", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "346 Ill. App. 3d 766" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "574 N.E.2d 200", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1991, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "214 Ill. App. 3d 868", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5297011 ], "year": 1991, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/214/0868-01" ] }, { "cite": "262 N.E.2d 179", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1970, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "127 Ill. App. 2d 166", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2472911 ], "year": 1970, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-2d/127/0166-01" ] }, { "cite": "758 N.E.2d 868", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 2001, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "325 Ill. App. 3d 835", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 570936 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "844" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/325/0835-01" ] }, { "cite": "178 F.3d 257", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.3d", "case_ids": [ 577878 ], "year": 1999, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "265", "parenthetical": "\"[A] differential diagnosis that fails to take serious account of other potential causes may be so lacking that it cannot provide a reliable basis for an opinion ***>>\u2022" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f3d/178/0257-01" ] }, { "cite": "32 Ga. L. Rev. 699", "category": "journals:journal", "reporter": "Ga. L. Rev.", "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "728" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "167 F.3d 146", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.3d", "case_ids": [ 11593032 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1999, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "156" }, { "page": "157" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f3d/167/0146-01" ] }, { "cite": "226 N.E.2d 867", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1967, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "37 Ill. 2d 335", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2863778 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1967, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "338" }, { "page": "339" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/37/0335-01" ] }, { "cite": "490 N.E.2d 20", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1986, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "141 Ill. App. 3d 195", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3495662 ], "year": 1986, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/141/0195-01" ] }, { "cite": "272 N.E.2d 674", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1971, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "1 Ill. App. 3d 92", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5315543 ], "year": 1971, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/1/0092-01" ] }, { "cite": "618 N.E.2d 531", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1993, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "248 Ill. App. 3d 398", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2942819 ], "year": 1993, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/248/0398-01" ] }, { "cite": "573 N.E.2d 279", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1991, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "214 Ill. App. 3d 47", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5297337 ], "year": 1991, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/214/0047-01" ] }, { "cite": "669 N.E.2d 1288", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1996, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "283 Ill. App. 3d 62", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 182721 ], "year": 1996, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/283/0062-01" ] }, { "cite": "765 N.E.2d 104", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 2002, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "328 Ill. App. 3d 37", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2183318 ], "year": 2002, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/328/0037-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 1038, "char_count": 20749, "ocr_confidence": 0.741, "pagerank": { "raw": 5.2489294078711253e-08, "percentile": 0.33019994602001895 }, "sha256": "b52d141da340f3460c394beee2791f197295de5dc5cb1ba018e6c87fe04f526a", "simhash": "1:7b9632d41b62ef70", "word_count": 3232 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:44:33.584383+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "PHILLIP MATUSZAK et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. GERALD CERNIAK et al., Defendants-Appellees." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE McDADE\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nPlaintiff, Phillip Matuszak, brought a medical malpractice action against his treating physician and hospital for damages allegedly sustained during a colonoscopy procedure. The trial court entered judgment on a jury verdict for defendants, and plaintiff timely appealed. In this appeal, plaintiff presents only one issue for review: whether the trial court committed reversible error in allowing defendant\u2019s expert witness to render speculative opinions regarding the possible causes of his injury. We find the court did not err and we affirm.\nFACTS\nThis present lawsuit arises from plaintiffs 1996 colonoscopy involving the use of the drug Versed. The record reveals that in July of 1996, plaintiff developed abdominal cramping and had blood in his stools. After he had been evaluated by his family physician, it was recommended that he undergo a colonoscopy in order to further assess his digestive tract.\nColonoscopy is a procedure in which a flexible, lighted instrument connected to a video screen is inserted into the rectum and moved around to permit examination of a patient\u2019s large intestine. Plaintiffs colonoscopy was performed on July 26, 1996, by Dr. Gerald Cerniak at St. Joseph\u2019s Medical Center.\nPrior to the procedure, Dr. Cerniak ordered the administration of three drugs, Demerol, Phenergan and Versed, to induce conscious sedation, calming and anti-nausea effects to reduce patient discomfort during the procedure. Versed, which acts directly on the patient\u2019s central nervous system, causes respiratory depression, which in turn could lead to hypoxia, a lack of oxygen in the blood.\nDuring the procedure, the monitoring of oxygen saturation after the administration of Versed is a critical function, since a patient whose blood oxygen drops below a certain level for even a short period of time can suffer brain damage, and possibly death. Along with other devices for monitoring his vital signs, a pulse oximeter, a device attached to the patient\u2019s finger, was used during plaintiffs colonoscopy to record pulse as well as to determine oxygen saturation in the blood. The oximeter sounds an alarm if the blood oxygen falls below the critical 90% level.\nJudy Dunham and Barbara Scott, registered nurses employed by St. Joseph\u2019s Medical Center, monitored Matuszak\u2019s vital signs and oxygen saturation level at specific intervals during the colonoscopy. The first notation that the nurses made on plaintiffs medical chart showed that at 10:50 a.m., plaintiff had been given 75 milligrams of Phenergan and 50 milligrams of Demerol. A five-milligram dose of Versed was administered at 11:55 a.m. Plaintiffs chart showed that he had an oxygen saturation level of 98% at that time, a reading in the upper range of normal. At noon, plaintiff received another five milligrams of Versed; his oxygen saturation was recorded at 90%, the lowest point within the normal range. By 12:15 p.m., his blood oxygen had risen to 96%, and it remained at that level until the procedure was completed at 12:25 p.m. There was no evidence that the pulse oximeter alarm ever sounded.\nPlaintiff was discharged from St. Joseph\u2019s at 1 p.m. It was shown that he had lunch at a local restaurant, visited several stores and shops, and later that evening, engaged in sexual relations with his wife. Testimony at trial indicated that such sexual activity is not possible within 24 hours of an hypoxic event. Several days after the procedure, plaintiff became confused and disoriented, causing his wife to worry. Plaintiff was hospitalized in mid-August 1996, after a period of confusion, lethargy, and severe headaches.\nPlaintiffs wife Judy testified that plaintiff developed symptoms of confusion and disorientation immediately after the colonoscopy. She stated that plaintiffs prior medical impairments included headaches, dizziness, ear infections, and upper respiratory tract infections. Additionally, she testified that plaintiff had been using the drug Valium on a regular basis for relief from injuries he sustained in a 1968 automobile accident.\nSubsequent hospital examinations revealed decreased blood flow to both sides of plaintiffs brain. A Single Photon Emission Computed Tomography (SPECT) scan, performed at Loyola University Medical Center, provided evidence of diminished brain activity. The scan showed diminished blood flow in the temporal lobe and parietal area of plaintiffs brain. Following the initial tests and hospitalization, plaintiff continued to exhibit the above-mentioned symptoms, plus angry outbursts, paranoia, and short-term memory problems.\nHe was next examined at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota. Doctors at the Mayo Clinic performed a differential diagnosis, which accounts for or rules out other medical conditions that may cause or contribute to plaintiffs present symptoms and complaints. This diagnosis led them to conclude that plaintiff suffers from a \u201ccognitive dysfunction of unknown etiology.\u201d\nThe pertinent issue at trial was whether defendants deviated from the standard of care in failing to properly administer the appropriate amount of the drug Versed. Plaintiff therefore presented the testimony of various standard-of-care experts at trial, including Dr. William Ca-hill, who specializes in internal medicine and is board certified. Dr. Ca-hill testified that Dr. Cerniak gave plaintiff \u201ctoo much Versed, which is a very dangerous drug. *** [H]e gave it too quickly. He didn't wait long enough in between the individual doses to be sure on what the effect of the drug was. He didn\u2019t know what it was. He gave it too quickly.\u201d Dr. Cahill further stated that the oxygen saturation level of 90% was below normal and subsequently caused irreversible damage to plaintiffs brain. He explained that, when a brain is deprived of oxygen, it will recover unless and until a threshold is reached, and after that time, permanent injury results. Dr. Cahill concluded that such a threshold was reached in this case.\nPlaintiff next presented the testimony of Dr. William Berger, a board-certified anesthesiologist. Dr. Berger described defendants\u2019 use of the medication as \u201cway too much\u201d throughout the colonoscopy procedure. He also opined that a \u201creasonable physician\u201d should \u201cguard against *** giving this much Versed.\u201d He further stated that the risk of brain injury existed in this case when plaintiff\u2019s oxygen saturation reading was recorded at 90%.\nHowever, it appeared that plaintiffs medical experts who testified on causation could not definitely conclude that the administration of Versed on July 26 caused either an hypoxic event or plaintiffs conditions. Dr. Ronald Petersen, plaintiffs treating physician at the Mayo Clinic, informed the jury that it was unlikely that hypoxia was the cause of plaintiffs conditions. Dr. Petersen examined plaintiffs SPECT scan results and concluded \u201cthat the SPECT blood flow pattern, interpretations, are nonspecific.\u201d\nDr. Morris Fishman, plaintiff\u2019s treating physician during his hospitalization at Loyola, testified that the testing that had been performed on plaintiff could not conclusively establish the origin of his symptoms. Dr. Fishman stated that based on his examination and treatment of plaintiff, he could not find \u201cclear evidence for any meaningful structural neurological injury. Nor could [Dr. Fishman] on the basis of the available evidence relate it to the colonoscopy in July.\u201d Both doctors relied on differential diagnosis to arrive at their conclusions. Each identified several possible causes for plaintiffs symptoms, including Alzheimer\u2019s disease, stroke, elevated urinary arsenic level, rheumatoid arthritis, depression, and an infectious disease process suggested by elevated protein levels found in plaintiffs cerebral spinal fluid. Both experts considered those alternatives and ruled them out. Having also ruled out an hypoxic event as a likely cause, both of plaintiffs treating experts reached the conclusion that plaintiff suffered from a \u201ccognitive dysfunction of unknown etiology.\u201d\nDefendants called Dr. Davidson, who also utilized differential diagnosis to develop the following opinion concerning the cause of plaintiffs conditions:\n\u201cQ. [Defense attorney]: Doctor, within a reasonable degree of medical certainty, will you share with the ladies and gentlemen of the jury what you consider to be an appropriate differential diagnosis of the condition of [plaintiff]?\nA. [Dr. Davidson]: I agree with the Mayo Clinic diagnosis as cognitive dysfunction of unknown etiology. The differential includes some degenerative disease of the brain, such as Alzheimer\u2019s disease, a progressive degenerative disease and there\u2019s several types. Secondly, a static cognitive dysfunction, which is made worse by an ongoing psychiatric difficulty or emotional difficulty.\nThirdly, he was in a car accident in the 1960\u2019s, which caused a significant head injury, at least significant for them to do a number of spinal taps. Fourthly, he did have some abnormalities in his work-up that weren\u2019t entirely explained, such as high arsenic level in his urine.\nHe has a history of rheumatoid arthritis, which can cause brain problems, he has an unexplained elevated white count. He had an antinuclear antibody that was slightly positive, all suggesting he may have an immunological problem. Also he sees an infectious disease doctor, who\u2019s told him that he has too many infections. So he might have a problem with his immune system.\nQ. Now, Doctor, based upon your review of the records and the testimony, depositions in this case, do you have an opinion whether that cognitive dysfunction is related to a hypoxic episode that occurred on July 26 of 1996.\nA. Yes, I have an opinion.\nQ. What is that?\nA. There\u2019s no evidence in any of these records that he had an hypoxic episode.\u201d\nPlaintiff objected on the ground that this opinion was speculative. The trial court overruled the objection.\nDr. Davidson next explained that differential diagnosis is a standard scientific technique for identifying the cause of a medical problem by eliminating the likely causes until the most probable one is isolated. He made plaintiffs differential diagnosis \u201cby reviewing the [medical records] and the transcripts of the depositions.\u201d The result of his diagnosis left some of plaintiffs conditions as possible causes of his cognitive dysfunction and ruled out hypoxia.\nOn cross-examination, plaintiffs trial counsel confronted Dr. Davidson with Dr. Petersen\u2019s testimony, which excluded Alzheimer\u2019s disease as a possible cause of plaintiffs symptoms:\n\u201cQ. [Plaintiffs attorney:] Am I correct that you feel one of the differential diagnoses that you have made, at least, is some progressive dementing illness, such as Alzheimer\u2019s?\nA. That\u2019s a possibility.\nQ. Are you aware that *** Dr. Petersen did not feel Alzheimer\u2019s was likely, yet, you disagree with that?\nA. No. I don\u2019t think it\u2019s likely. It\u2019s part of my differential. If I thought anything is likely, I would say this is the diagnosis to a reasonable degree of medical certainty. I am saying that these are the possibilities. Now, I am not saying that [plaintiff] likely has Alzheimer\u2019s. I just list it as one of the possibilities.\u201d\nPlaintiff filed his timely appeal, alleging that the trial court\u2019s refusal to bar Dr. Davidson\u2019s \u201cspeculative and prejudicial\u201d testimony constituted reversible error.\nANALYSIS\nGenerally, expert testimony is admissible if the proffered expert is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education and the testimony will assist the trier of fact in understanding the evidence. Friedman v. Safe Security Services, Inc., 328 Ill. App. 3d 37, 765 N.E.2d 104 (2002). The decision to admit opinion testimony lies within the trial court\u2019s sound discretion, and a reviewing court will not reverse its decision absent an abuse of discretion. Van Holt v. National R.R. Passenger Corp., 283 Ill. App. 3d 62, 669 N.E.2d 1288 (1996).\nOn appeal, plaintiff claims that the trial court should have barred Dr. Davidson from rendering any opinion regarding other possible causes of plaintiffs conditions. Plaintiff does not challenge Dr. Davidson\u2019s credentials but instead maintains that his differential diagnosis opinion was not admissible because he failed to rule out other possible causes in reaching his conclusion. We find this argument without merit.\nIt is permissible for a medical expert to testify concerning his or her opinions in terms of possibilities or probabilities. Baird v. Adeli, 214 Ill. App. 3d 47, 573 N.E.2d 279 (1991). The expert may testify to what might or could have caused an injury despite any objection that the testimony is inconclusive. Geers v. Brichta, 248 Ill. App. 3d 398, 618 N.E.2d 531 (1993). The testimony need not be based on absolute certainty, but only a reasonable degree of medical and scientific certainty. Nowicki v. Union Starch & Refining Co., 1 Ill. App. 3d 92, 272 N.E.2d 674 (1971). It remains for the trier of fact to determine the facts and the inferences to be drawn from the testimony. Mesick v. Johnson, 141 Ill. App. 3d 195, 490 N.E.2d 20 (1986).\nOur conclusion is consistent with the Illinois Supreme Court decision in Field Enterprises v. Industrial Comm\u2019n, 37 Ill. 2d 335, 226 N.E.2d 867 (1967). In Field, the claimant\u2019s husband died while working at his employer\u2019s factory. One of claimant\u2019s medical experts opined that the cause of death was \u201corganic heart disease of some type and that decedent died of heart failure because of it.\u201d Field, 37 Ill. 2d at 338. Another medical expert, however, testified that the cause of death was an acute coronary episode with a myocardial infarction. The employer\u2019s medical witness stated that a number of conditions could have caused the decedent\u2019s death in view of his medical history. The Industrial Commission found in favor of the claimant and awarded her compensation for her husband\u2019s death. On appeal, the employer argued that the Commission\u2019s finding that the decedent died of a heart attack was purely speculation and unsupported by the evidence. The employer maintained that the Commission\u2019s finding was not proper in that case because the claimant failed to present evidence to negate the other reasonable causes for the decedent\u2019s death. Our supreme court affirmed the finding of the Commission, holding that \u201c[t]he claimant was not required to negate every other possible cause of death to establish death by reason of a heart attack as a legitimate inference from the evidence.\u201d Field, 37 Ill. 2d at 339.\nWe are also provided direction by decisions of the federal courts addressing the precise issue raised here. In Heller v. Shaw Industries, Inc., 167 F.3d 146 (3d Cir. 1999), the Third Circuit Court of Appeals held that a medical expert\u2019s causation opinion should not be excluded because he or she fails to rule out every possible alternative cause of a patient\u2019s medical problem. In Heller, the plaintiff brought a personal injury suit against a carpet manufacturer, alleging respiratory problems after its carpet was installed in her home. Plaintiffs medical expert was able to rule out, after conducting a differential diagnosis, various possible causes of the plaintiffs respiratory problems. He also offered a number of plausible alternative causes, including dust from other carpets, benzene and 2-butoxyethanol from other sources, and paint and new hardwood floors in the house. The trial court granted the defendant\u2019s motion to exclude the expert\u2019s testimony because he failed to rule out all alternative possible causes of the plaintiffs illness.\nThe circuit court reversed. Chief Circuit Judge Edward Becker, writing for the majority, reasoned: \u201c \u2018[T]o require the experts to rule out categorically all other possible causes for an injury would mean that few experts would ever be able to testify....\u2019 \u201d Heller, 167 F.3d at 156, quoting D. Capra, The Daubert Puzzle, 32 Ga. L. Rev. 699, 728 (1998). Judge Becker further explained that the alternative causes suggested by the medical expert only affected the weight that the jury should give the expert\u2019s testimony and \u201cnot the admissibility of that testimony.\u201d Heller, 167 F.3d at 157. See also Westberry v. Gislaved Gummi AB, 178 F.3d 257, 265 (4th Cir. 1999) (\u201c[A] differential diagnosis that fails to take serious account of other potential causes may be so lacking that it cannot provide a reliable basis for an opinion ***>>\u2022)\nIn the instant case, we similarly find that the admissibility of Dr. Davidson\u2019s opinion does not depend upon his ability to disprove every possible cause of plaintiffs injury. Dr. Davidson gave his opinion, based upon a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that plaintiffs injuries were caused by an unknown etiology.\nDr. Davidson utilized the process of differential diagnosis to reach his conclusion. In performing his diagnosis, he considered several alternative causes of plaintiffs conditions including plaintiffs prior car injury, an immunological disorder, rheumatoid arthritis, or Alzheimer\u2019s disease. Dr. Davidson stated that he relied on other experts\u2019 testimony and was aware of plaintiff\u2019s medical history. He also reviewed plaintiffs clinical test results, including the SPECT scan results and the Mayo Clinic differential diagnosis. His conclusion was, in fact, the same as that of Drs. Petersen and Fishman, two of plaintiffs own experts, even though he did not rule out all other possible causes as they did. None of them found hypoxia to be a likely cause of plaintiffs symptoms. We conclude that his testimony assisted the jury in understanding the evidence and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting this testimony.\nPlaintiff next argues that \u201cthere was no reliable evidence that any of these conditions caused [plaintiffs] condition.\u201d He draws our attentions to the cases of Reed v. Jackson Park Hospital Foundation, 325 Ill. App. 3d 835, 758 N.E.2d 868 (2001), and Gariti v. Karlin, 127 Ill. App. 2d 166, 262 N.E.2d 179 (1970).\nIn Reed, the trial court barred defendant\u2019s medical expert from testifying that there was a 20% chance the plaintiffs eye could have been saved had the eye injury been discovered at the emergency room rather than four days later. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the expert \u201clacked the knowledge of the condition of plaintiffs eye\u201d when he entered the emergency room. Reed, 325 Ill. App. 3d at 844. In Gariti, the defendant\u2019s medical expert testified that defendant motorist suffered from a diabetic attack, which caused his vehicle to swerve across the center line and collide with the plaintiffs car. The reviewing court considered this testimony highly speculative and improper because there was no evidence that the defendant was diabetic before the accident or that his vehicle crossed the center line before the collision.\nBoth Reed and Gariti suggest that when an expert\u2019s opinion is totally lacking in factual support, it is nothing more than conjecture and guess and should not be admitted as evidence. See also Wilson v. Bell Fuels, Inc., 214 Ill. App. 3d 868, 574 N.E.2d 200 (1991).\nIn this case, however, there is certainly evidence in the record\u2014 from plaintiffs medical history and from clinical tests \u2014 to support the differential diagnosis. Dr. Davidson also offered good explanations as to why his diagnosis was reliable. For example, the evidence showed that plaintiff had a history of rheumatoid arthritis. Dr. Davidson testified that rheumatoid arthritis was one of the conditions that would predispose plaintiff to his current neurological difficulties. Further, Dr. Davidson listed plaintiffs prior automobile accident as a possible contributing factor. He pointed out that plaintiff had suffered a serious head injury from his 1968 car accident for which prescription pain medication was appropriate. We believe these examples are sufficient to give Dr. Davidson reliable ground for his conclusion, even though plaintiff did not agree with that conclusion.\nCONCLUSION\nFor these reasons, we conclude that no reversible error occurred as a result of Dr. Davidson\u2019s testimony. The judgment of the circuit court of Will County is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nHOLDRIDGE, P.J, and BARRY, J, concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE McDADE" } ], "attorneys": [ "David A. Novoselsky and Leslie J. Rosen (argued), both of David A. Novoselsky & Associates, of Chicago, for appellants.", "Daniel E Slayden, of Hinshaw & Culbertson, of Joliet, and Joshua G. Vincent (argued), of Hinshaw & Culbertson, of Chicago, for appellee St. Joseph Hospital.", "Pamela D. Gorcowski (argued), of Rooks, Pitts & Poust, of Joliet, for appellee Gerald Cerniak." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "PHILLIP MATUSZAK et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. GERALD CERNIAK et al., Defendants-Appellees.\nThird District\nNo. 3 \u2014 02\u20140320\nOpinion filed February 25, 2004.\nDavid A. Novoselsky and Leslie J. Rosen (argued), both of David A. Novoselsky & Associates, of Chicago, for appellants.\nDaniel E Slayden, of Hinshaw & Culbertson, of Joliet, and Joshua G. Vincent (argued), of Hinshaw & Culbertson, of Chicago, for appellee St. Joseph Hospital.\nPamela D. Gorcowski (argued), of Rooks, Pitts & Poust, of Joliet, for appellee Gerald Cerniak." }, "file_name": "0766-01", "first_page_order": 784, "last_page_order": 793 }