## Facts

- Theodore Gault had a spinal condition described as a ruptured intervertebral disc.
- Gault retained Drs. Sideman, Glassman, and Wolin, whom he alleged held themselves out as qualified physicians and surgical specialists.
- Gault alleged the physicians advised his condition could be cured by spinal surgery and that they could alleviate and cure it, and that he consented in reliance on those representations.
- The physicians performed spinal surgery.
- Gault alleged the doctors negligently injured nerves during the operation, leaving him permanently paralyzed and crippled in his left leg and causing continuing pain and suffering.
- The trial court granted the physicians’ motion for a directed verdict after Gault’s case-in-chief.
- On appeal, Gault primarily argued the evidence required submission to the jury on a “special contract to cure” theory (a contractual guarantee of a successful result).

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence, viewed most favorably to Gault, was sufficient to permit a jury to find that the physicians made an express special contract guaranteeing a cure or successful surgical result.
2. What proof is required under Illinois law to distinguish a binding contract-to-cure promise from nonbinding medical opinions, prognoses, or reassurance.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed the directed verdict for the physicians.
- The court held the evidence did not establish an enforceable special contract to cure.
- Statements that the condition “could be cured” by surgery or that the doctors could “alleviate and cure” were treated as medical opinion or expectation, not a definite promise to achieve a specific result.
- Because no reasonable jury could find an express guarantee on the record presented, the contract theory failed as a matter of law.

## Legal Principles

- A physician ordinarily undertakes to use reasonable care and skill, not to insure or warrant a favorable outcome.
- A special contract to cure requires clear, definite proof of an express promise showing intent to be bound to a specific result; general assurances and optimistic prognoses are insufficient.
- Evidence of negligent treatment may support malpractice liability but does not substitute for proof of a distinct contractual guarantee of cure.
- A directed verdict is proper where, even construing the evidence for the plaintiff, an essential element of the asserted theory (here, a definite promise to cure) is missing.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed judgment for the defendant physicians because Gault’s evidence showed, at most, nonbinding medical opinion about the likelihood of success and did not prove an express, unequivocal contract guaranteeing a cure or specific surgical result.


Gault v. Sideman, 191 N.E.2d 436 (Ill. App. Ct. 1963)