This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P was found to have a congested, obstructed prostate. As he underwent a transurethral resection (TUR) of his prostate gland, P suffered a cardiac arrest. With the aid of emergency measures, he was successfully revived. P sued Ds alleging negligence in clauses a-k. P further alleged that as a proximate result of the above negligence, he suffered a cardiac arrest 'from which he expired but was thereafter resuscitated with consequent brain * * * damage.' Ds asked P to identify each expert witness he intended to call at trial. The request went unanswered. P eventually disclosed that he intended to call Dr. Streeter as an expert medical witness. Ds deposed Dr. Streeter. Dr. Streeter had reviewed the depositions of Dr. Witte and Dr. Buziak, the hospital medical records concerning the care and treatment of P, and interrogatory answers filed by Chicago Osteopathic Hospital and Drs. Lombardo, Szwed, Kovachevic, Caleel, Buziak, and Witte. Dr. Streeter stated that, with the use of the Ellick Evacuator, many things can be absorbed into the circulatory system, including air. While the human body can handle small amounts of air in the venous circulation with no real difficulty, a large volume of air, such as 50, 75, or 100 cc's, can result in an air embolism. Although Dr. Streeter had never encountered a clinically detectable air embolism in the 100 TURs he had personally performed, an air embolism is a recognized and reported risk of the TUR surgical procedure. Dr. Streeter asserted that during the TUR surgical procedure performed at Chicago Osteopathic Hospital, a large volume of air entered the right side of P's circulatory system, resulting in an air embolism, which eventually caused a cardiac arrest. Dr. Streeter also testified that an air embolism can occur during the performance of a transurethral resection without any negligence on the part of the doctor performing that particular procedure. The Dr. also stated that he did not have any criticism of any of Ds as to the care they rendered to P. The Dr. stated that there was no professional negligence on the part of Ds. Ds moved for summary judgment, and it was granted. P appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.