Inaccurate Instructions and Interest on the Verdict: Takeaways from Johnson v. Advocate For the Medical Negligence Professional

In the landmark case of Johnson v. Advocate, critical issues surrounding jury instructions and prejudgment interest were brought to light, reshaping the landscape for medical malpractice defense in Illinois. The court’s decision emphasized the importance of accurately instructing juries on the sole proximate cause defense, a right long recognized in Illinois law. Additionally, the ruling clarified that high-low proposals made during deliberations do not qualify as settlement offers, preserving the potential for significant financial implications post-verdict. This case serves as a vital reminder for defense attorneys to strategically navigate complex legal challenges and protect their clients’ interests.

Illinois Appellate Court Rules on Sole Proximate Cause Jury Instruction

On May 7, 2025, the First District of the Illinois Appellate Court affirmed a $20 million medical malpractice verdict against a hospital, holding that while the defendant was entitled to a non-pattern jury instruction on sole proximate cause, the trial court’s failure to give the instruction was harmless. The court further ruled that a proposed high-low agreement did not qualify as a settlement offer under Illinois’ prejudgment interest statute, allowing prejudgment interest to remain available despite the verdict.