Illinois Appellate Court Upholds Verdict for E. Coli Misdiagnosis Case

An Illinois appellate panel has affirmed a defense verdict for three physicians accused of failing to timely diagnose and treat a fatal E. coli infection that progressed to septic shock. The ruling leaves intact a Cook County jury’s finding that the physicians’ care at the University of Illinois Hospital in 2016 did not breach the applicable standard of care, despite the plaintiff’s contention that earlier antibiotic administration and an infectious disease consult would have changed the outcome. On appeal, the plaintiff challenged both the evidentiary landscape presented to the jury and the trial court’s management of trial proceedings, urging a new trial based on alleged instructional and testimonial errors.

Claims and Medical Timeline at Issue

The suit, filed in 2018 by Miguel Ochoa, arose from the death of his mother, Ana Ochoa, following septic shock attributed to an undiagnosed E. coli infection. According to the allegations, the defendant physicians—Mark Kushner, Matthew O’Toole, and Sharon Shung—failed to adequately treat what was characterized as a urinary tract infection by not securing an infectious disease consultation and by not administering appropriate antibiotics in time. The plaintiff’s theory centered on causation: that earlier targeted treatment would more likely than not have prevented the progression to sepsis and death.

At trial, the causation dispute turned on competing medical opinions regarding disease progression, the timing and selection of antibiotics, and whether the decedent’s condition would have been survivable with different clinical decisions. The appellate panel later emphasized that the jury was presented with conflicting expert testimony on survivability and that the jury credited the defense’s presentation. That credibility determination, the court indicated, was central to the outcome and resistant to appellate second-guessing under the standards governing review of verdicts.

Appeal Arguments on Evidence and Trial Management

On appeal, Miguel Ochoa argued that the defense verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence and that multiple trial rulings improperly shaped what jurors heard and how they evaluated it. Among the challenges were objections to testimony addressing the conduct of physicians who were not named as defendants, along with claims that other evidentiary decisions unfairly benefited the defense. The defense is represented by Donohue Brown Smyth LLC, according to court filings.

The appeal also targeted a trial-management issue: the judge told jurors they could discuss the case among themselves before the close of evidence. The appellate panel agreed that the trial court should not have made that statement, but it concluded the issue did not warrant reversal. The court held the plaintiff forfeited the argument by failing to raise a timely objection and further determined that the record did not support a showing of prejudice sufficient to justify a new trial in light of the overall proceedings and verdict.

Appellate Court’s Reasoning and Affirmance

In affirming the judgment, the First District panel applied the deferential framework that governs review of a jury verdict and a trial court’s evidentiary decisions. It concluded that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in the challenged rulings on testimony and other trial evidence. While the plaintiff maintained that earlier antibiotic therapy would have altered the outcome, the appellate court framed the issue as one of disputed expert proof that the jury resolved against the plaintiff, a dynamic often seen when expert testimonies conflict.

The panel underscored that the plaintiff’s experts were “squarely contradicted” by defense experts and that the jury evidently found the defense testimony more credible. The court stated, “We cannot and will not usurp the function of the jury by substituting our judgment for theirs.” With that, it rejected the manifest-weight challenge and declined to disturb the verdict based on the asserted trial errors. The opinion was issued by a panel consisting of Justices Celia Gamrath, Carl A. Walker, and Michael B. Hyman.