Case: Walski v Tiesenga

72 Ill.2d 249

Parties: Plaintiff - Walski (patient)

Defendant - Tiesenga (doctor)

Procedural History: Directed verdict for defendant doctors. Plaintiff challenges

the directed verdict.

Facts: Walski undergoes a thyroidectomy, which runs the risk of the patient
losing their voice. A method to prevent this was unavailable to the doctor because
there was scar tissue present and instead used a different method, resulting in
the loss of voice of the patient. The plaintiff's expert (a doctor) said that he
would not have used the method employed by the defendant doctors here.

Issue: Was the doctor negligent in performing the operation?

Holding: Court affirmed directed verdict for defendant doctors.

Reasoning: Court found that the doctor was not unskillful or negligent. The
evidence showed that there were two conflicting opinions in the medical community
as to what the correct procedure was under the circumstances. The method used
here was not proven to be unacceptable, just of a differing opinion from the
expert testimony. Court said it was not sufficient to establish a prima facie
case just because the plaintiff's expert would have acted differently from the
defendant doctors. Without evidence of a standard of care that the doctors were
bound to follow, there was nothing against which a jury could measure conduct or
negligence.

Notes
Plaintiff failed to show adequate evidence of the standard of care.