Berlin v. Nathan
Illinois Appellate Court
381 N.E.2d 1367, 64 Ill. App. 3d 940 (1978)
- Written by Sarah Hoffman, JD
Facts
Harriet Nathan (defendant) went to the hospital for an injured finger, which was x-rayed, and the x-ray was read by Dr. Berlin (plaintiff). Berlin diagnosed a dislocated finger, and Dr. Meltzer treated the finger. A month later, Nathan’s finger was x-rayed again, and a fracture was found. Two years later, Nathan filed suit against Berlin, Meltzer, and the hospital for malpractice. Berlin countersued Nathan and her attorneys, claiming they sued Berlin without reasonable cause. Berlin argued that Nathan and her attorneys had not obtained an opinion from another doctor about the x-ray or injury before filing suit. Berlin did not plead that Nathan’s attorneys had acted maliciously. After Nathan voluntarily dismissed the malpractice claim, the counterclaim proceeded to trial. The jury found in favor of Berlin. Nathan and her attorneys appealed. On appeal, an amicus curiae argued that the jury verdict must be upheld on the grounds that the jury found Nathan and her attorneys guilty of malicious prosecution.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Romiti, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 810,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
