Dillon v. Evanston Hospital

771 N.E.2d 357 (2002)

Study Aids
Case Briefs Overview
Casebooks
Case Briefs
D
From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Dillon v. Evanston Hospital

Illinois Supreme Court
771 N.E.2d 357 (2002)

  • Written by Rose VanHofwegen, JD
Play video

Facts

Diane Dillon (plaintiff) sued Evanston Hospital, Dr. Stephen Sener, and others (defendants) for medical malpractice after Dr. Sener left part of a chemotherapy catheter in Dillon’s vein. The fragment migrated to Dillon’s heart, where it was too risky to remove. Leaving the fragment in Dillon’s heart carried risks of future infection, heart perforation, arrythmia, embolization, and further migration. None of those problems occurred before trial, and several doctors testified that they were not reasonably certain to occur in the future. The risk of infection ranged from 0 to 20 percent, and the risks of other problems 5 percent or less. The judge instructed that the jury could award damages for Dillon’s “increased risk of future injuries” and “pain and suffering experienced and reasonably certain to be experienced in the future as a result of the injuries.” The jury awarded Dillon $500,000 for increased risk of future injuries. Dr. Sener and the hospital appealed. After the appellate court affirmed, the Illinois Supreme Court granted review.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Freeman, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 816,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 816,000 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 816,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership

Casebooks

Remedies

Key Terms