Audit Trails and the Scope of Medical Record Discovery in IllinoisBy Courtney A. Berlin & Mary DalenbergTort Law, February 2026As electronic medical records have become standard practice, discovery disputes focus on not only what appears in the patient chart, but how the chart was created, accessed, and modified. One of the most contested sources of that data is the audit trail, a system-generated log showing when records were accessed, altered, or reviewed.
When Does the Deliberate Encounter Exception Apply to an Open and Obvious Condition?By Brent R. EamesTort Law, February 2026An analysis of the appellate court’s reasoning in Hertz v. City of Fairbury: Based upon the court’s reasoning in Hertz, it should be clear that any defect which only poses a minor inconvenience to navigate will not be considered valid for purposes of invoking the deliberate encounter exception to an open and obvious condition.
Wilcox v. Advocate Condell Is a Roadmap To Litigate System-Based Institutional NegligenceTort Law, February 2026The First District in Wilcox v. Advocate Condell Medical Center upheld the longstanding principle that a hospital’s direct liability is not limited strictly to “administrative functions." When appropriate, plaintiff’s attorneys should plead and prove institutional negligence claims in addition to claims for respondeat superior and/or individual providers’ medical negligence.
Advocacy or Arrogance: Dangers of Social Media During TrialBy Albert E. Durkin & Joseph SalviTort Law, August 2025A summary of the First District Appellate Court case, Kroft v. Viper Trans., Inc., and the lessons learned about social media.
Chair’s ColumnBy Judith ConwayTort Law, August 2025A note from the Chair of the Tort Law Section Council.
Ethical Considerations When Representing Elderly ClientsBy Judith ConwayTort Law, April 2025A quick summary of some important ethical rules, all of which come from the Illinois Supreme Court Rules of Professional Conduct, which texts should be reviewed in full. Following the Rules are some practical things to consider. Additionally, the comments on the Rules provide excellent insight for any questions practitioners may have.
S. Ct. Rule 215 Neuropsychological Exams Versus 735 ILCS 5/2-1003(d)By Michael RothmannTort Law, April 2025In tort claims, the Defendant usually seeks a Rule 215 neuropsychological exam of an injured party suffering from prolonged post-concussion symptoms or more significant traumatic brain injury. Pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-1003(d) (2025), plaintiffs have the right to have their attorney present and have the right to video record the examination. Defendants invariably argue that no person, other than the injured party, can be present during the neuropsychological exam to ensure the validity of the test and protect the intellectual property of the test and test materials. These arguments do not overcome the statute and fail even if no such statute existed.
The Use of a Police Report at Trial to Refresh the Recollection of an Investigating Officer and the Application of the Hearsay Rule and the Exceptions: Capsel v. BurwellBy Richard L. Turner, Jr.Tort Law, April 2025In analysis of Capsel v. Burwell, 2024 IL App (3d) 230170. In this case, the truth and accuracy of the officer’s report could not be established in that he did not witness the collision and could not identify who provided the statements. The officer’s testimony lacked the necessary foundation and was inadmissible under the past recollection recorded exception, or any other exception, to the hearsay rule. The appellate court then found that the trial court’s act of admitting the statements in the report into evidence constituted reversible error meriting a new trial.
“Relating Back” Additional Allegations Against a Defendant for the Conduct of a Previously Unnamed Employee/Agent After the Statue of Limitations Has ExpiredBy Jeffrey A. Schulkin & Madison LewandowskiTort Law, December 2024Under certain circumstances, additional allegations may be added against a defendant after the statute of limitations has expired for the conduct of a previously unnamed employee/agent. The Illinois “relation-back” statute, 735 ILCS 5/2-616(b) (2002), allows additional allegations against a defendant for one of its previously unnamed agents/employees filed after the statute of limitations has expired, if the allegations arise out of the same, or substantially similar occurrence as stated in the timely filed pleading.
Evaluating Mid-Level Providers TodayBy Nicholas T. MotherwayTort Law, October 2024Plaintiffs’ counsel knows the general rule in medical malpractice cases: to even get started, you must have an expert in the same field as the defendant to prove a breach of the standard of care. The experts must also do the proverbial “stay in your lane” for breach and causation.
Fraudulent Concealment and the Agency RelationshipBy Mark Benfield & Kathryn Johnson-MonfortTort Law, October 2024Fraudulent concealment in Illinois does not itself create a cause of action, rather, it operates as an exception to the time limitations imposed on a separate, underlying cause of action.
Primer on Negligent Hiring, Supervising, and Retention ClaimsBy Dominic C. LoVerdeTort Law, October 2024Prosecuting and defending negligent hiring, supervising, and retention claims can be fraught with various legal and factual landmines and issues. Employers have a duty to act reasonably in hiring, supervising, and retaining their employees.
Illinois Supreme Court Rule 219 and Exclusion of WitnessesBy Mark Benfield & Kathryn Johnson-MonfortTort Law, June 2024An overview of Illinois Supreme Court Rule 219(c), which allows the court to impose sanctions for failure to comply with court rules — including barring a witness from testifying.
Uniform Interstate Depositions and Discovery ActBy Martin L. GlinkTort Law, June 2024The Uniform Interstate Depositions and Discovery Act facilitates issuing subpoenas in Illinois for out-of-state depositions, inspections, and discovery.
What Can You Do If Your Client Signed a Release?By Brion W. DohertyTort Law, April 2024A release may be unenforceable if neither plaintiff nor defendant understand the true nature of the plaintiff's injuries on the date the release is signed.
