The Takeaway
In an interesting twist on medical litigation, Illinois’ Fourth District Appellate Court reviewed the duty a surgeon may owe to operating room staff in its Rule 23 opinion, Harris v. Rossi, 2025 IL App (4th) 4240721-U (March 5, 2025). The Court provided an excellent analysis of the duty requirement under Illinois law, setting forth in detail the elements necessary to prove a duty owed to a plaintiff and ultimately sustaining summary judgment to the defendant surgeon.
Background
This case resulted from a shoulder injury sustained by a long-time operating room nurse during a laparoscopic surgery. Nurse Harris sued the surgeon and his professional corporation alleging he was negligent during the surgery because he moved a ceiling mounted monitor while her hands were on the monitor. The Plaintiff alleged the surgeon asked her to move the monitor. She said he then grasped the monitor from behind her and moved it, which resulted in immediate pain in her shoulder. Subsequently, she required a rotator cuff repair. Defendant argued he did not owe Harris a duty. The trial court agreed.
Appellate Analysis
The Fourth District Appellate Court acknowledged that the concept of duty is one that is “very involved, complex and nebulous.”[i] It affirmed that the key analysis is whether a relationship between the plaintiff and defendant created an obligation on the defendant of reasonable conduct to the plaintiff.[ii] The Court then outlined the four factors used to determine whether a relationship creates a duty and examined each factor in relationship to this case. (Note that the Court examined two of the factors together.)
Foreseeability of the injury. When the Court looked at the events of this injury, it acknowledged there was no evidence that the surgeon shoved or jerked the monitor suddenly. Additionally, it determined there was no evidence presented that this type of injury had previously occurred with monitor repositioning.[iii]
Likelihood of injury. The Court found there was not a high likelihood of injury generally as most employees work together day to day without injury, as did this nurse and surgeon. In addition, both were highly trained, which further lowered the risk of injury.[iv]
Magnitude of the burden of guarding against the injury and consequences of placing the burden on the defendant. The Court provided a joint analysis of these two factors. Its reasoning, in part, was based on its concurrence with the Illinois Supreme Court in O’Hara v. Holy Cross Hospital. It held that to mandate any other duty other than to the patient in surgery could disrupt that surgery, thus harming the patient and by extension the public. They did not want to burden the medical field beyond its primary function of providing patient care.[v]
Based on these four factors, the Court ultimately found no duty existed to Nurse Harris, and it affirmed the trial court’s summary judgment.[vi]
Conclusion
In a time when patients are frequently filing medical negligence cases, this decision may give some medical providers relief that co-workers’ injuries might not also be considered their fault as well.
[i] Harris v. Rossi, 2025 IL App (4th) 4240721-U (March 5, 2025), ¶ 11
[ii] Id. at ¶ 11.
[iii] Id. at ¶ 19-20.
[iv] Id. at ¶ 13.
[v] Id at ¶ 14-16.
[vi] Id. at ¶ 23.
PartnerTammy Banasek is a dedicated litigator who has developed a special focus in defending medical and dental professionals, hospitals, and skilled nursing facilities. She also counsels physicians and dentists in professional ...
