## Facts

- Louis Chiero underwent a transurethral resection of the prostate at Chicago Osteopathic Hospital in March 1970.
- During the procedure, Chiero suffered cardiac arrest but was revived through emergency measures.
- Chiero alleged he sustained brain damage from the arrest and related perioperative and postoperative care.
- He sued the hospital and involved physicians/staff for medical malpractice, alleging failures in preoperative testing, anesthesia management, monitoring of vital signs, prevention of air embolism, availability of appropriate staff/equipment, and postoperative measures to prevent brain injury.
- In discovery, Chiero identified a single medical expert, Dr. Streeter.
- Dr. Streeter testified that air embolism is a recognized risk of the procedure and can occur without negligence, and he had no criticism of any defendant’s care and found no professional negligence.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment; the trial court granted summary judgment for all defendants, and Chiero appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether Chiero produced competent expert evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact on breach of the medical standard of care and causation sufficient to defeat summary judgment.
2. Whether, in a complex malpractice case, the requirement of expert testimony to establish the standard of care and deviation should be relaxed or abandoned.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed summary judgment for the hospital and physician defendants.
- The court held Chiero failed to present expert testimony that defendants breached the applicable standard of care or that any breach caused his injuries.
- The court rejected Chiero’s request to relax the expert-testimony requirement in complex medical malpractice litigation.
- The court declined to permit an inference of negligence from the cardiac arrest or alleged brain damage alone, given the technical nature of the procedure and recognized risks.

## Legal Principles

- In medical malpractice cases involving matters outside common lay knowledge, a plaintiff must prove the medical standard of care, deviation from that standard, and proximate causation, ordinarily through qualified expert medical testimony.
- An adverse outcome, without expert support, does not establish negligence in technically complex medical treatment.
- When a plaintiff’s designated expert affirmatively testifies defendants met the standard of care and were not negligent, and the plaintiff offers no contrary competent expert evidence, no triable issue of fact exists and summary judgment is proper.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed summary judgment because the claimed malpractice involved technical medical questions requiring expert proof, and the plaintiff’s own expert negated breach and left the record without competent evidence from which a factfinder could find negligence or causation.


Chiero v. Chi. Osteopathic Hosp., 74 Ill. App. 3d 166, 392 N.E.2d 203 (Ill. App. Ct. 1979)