Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status

Neade v. Portes

739 N.E.2d 496 (2000)

Case BriefRelatedOptions
From our private database of 31,100+ case briefs...

Neade v. Portes

Illinois Supreme Court

739 N.E.2d 496 (2000)

Facts

Anthony Neade (plaintiff) was a 37-year-old man who was overweight, smoked, suffered from hypertension, and had a high cholesterol count. Anthony began to experience chest pain and shortness of breath and visited his primary-care physician, Dr. Steven Portes (defendant), who worked at a family center under contract with a health-maintenance organization (HMO). Portes admitted Anthony to the hospital for a thallium stress test and an electrocardiogram. Another physician interpreted the test results as normal and diagnosed Anthony with non-cardiac-related conditions. Portes discharged Anthony from the hospital. Anthony continued to experience intermittent symptoms of coronary artery blockage over the following year and visited Portes at the family center on multiple occasions to report these symptoms. Portes’s associates at the family center twice recommended that Anthony undergo an angiogram, a specific test for diagnosing coronary artery disease, but Portes relied on the earlier test results and did not authorize an angiogram. Three months later, Anthony suffered a massive myocardial infarction due to coronary artery blockage and died. Anthony’s wife, Theresa Neade (plaintiff) brought an action against Portes, alleging claims for medical negligence and breach of fiduciary duty. Theresa claimed that a contract between Portes and the HMO provided a medical incentive for Portes not to order outside tests for patients. Theresa claimed that Portes breached his fiduciary duty to Anthony by failing to disclose this HMO incentive not to authorize the recommended angiogram. Portes moved to dismiss the breach-of-fiduciary-duty cause of action. The trial court dismissed the cause of action. Theresa appealed. The appellate court reversed and held that Theresa pleaded different facts, thus supporting a separate breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim against Portes. Portes appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (McMorrow, J.)

Dissent (Harrison, C.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 557,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—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 557,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 31,100 briefs, keyed to 984 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 557,000 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
  • 31,100 briefs - keyed to 984 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