Background
Irene Lyons alleged that Dr. Marsha E. Gorens negligently prescribed implanted bioidentical hormone pellets despite Lyons’s family history of breast cancer and failed to disclose the therapy’s associated risks. Lyons later developed cancer in both breasts. Her husband, Jacoby Radford, asserted loss of consortium.
A jury found for the plaintiffs and awarded Lyons $140,000 for loss of normal life, pain and suffering, emotional distress, and disfigurement. It awarded nothing for future damages, increased risk of recurrence, or Radford’s consortium claim. The circuit court denied the plaintiffs’ request for a new trial on damages only or, alternatively, on all issues.
The Court’s Holding
The appellate court affirmed. It held that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion by excluding references to the pellets’ lack of FDA approval. The plaintiffs offered no evidence connecting nonapproval itself to Lyons’s cancer or establishing that nonapproval meant the pellets were unsafe, and the jury otherwise heard evidence concerning the therapy’s dosage, risks, safety, and standard-of-care implications. Because the jury found for the plaintiffs, their assertion that FDA-related evidence would have increased damages was speculative.
The court also rejected challenges to defense counsel’s remarks and evidence concerning other cases, Lyons’s failure to report a breast lump, and Dr. Gorens’s practice. Several objections were forfeited because the plaintiffs did not raise them at trial. Other challenged evidence was relevant to the treatment chronology and standard of care, did not violate the applicable in limine orders, or caused no reversible prejudice because the trial court sustained objections and instructed the jury to disregard unsupported argument. The plaintiffs therefore were not entitled to a new trial on damages or all issues.
Key Takeaways
- A drug’s lack of FDA approval was properly excluded where no evidence tied that regulatory status to causation or established that it meant the treatment was unsafe.
- Failure to make contemporaneous objections forfeited several challenges to testimony and counsel’s arguments.
- Promptly sustained objections and limiting instructions cured prejudice from improper closing remarks, particularly where the jury found for the plaintiffs.
Why It Matters
The order illustrates that a prevailing medical-malpractice plaintiff seeking a larger damages award must show actual prejudice from an evidentiary ruling or improper argument, not merely speculate that additional information could have produced a higher verdict. It also underscores the importance of preserving trial objections and requesting further curative relief when an instruction is considered inadequate.
The order was filed under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 23 and is nonprecedential except in the limited circumstances permitted by Rule 23(e)(1).