Foran Glennon shareholders Thomas Orlando, Matthew Reddy, John Smith and associate Alexander Beehler successfully defended their clients, a team of healthcare providers and associated medical entities, in a medical malpractice case alleging negligence involving statin medication.
Original Case Background
The plaintiff filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against her healthcare providers, alleging negligence in the continued prescription of a statin medication, Atorvastatin, despite symptoms consistent with statin-induced myopathy. The plaintiff argued that the physicians failed to order timely diagnostic testing and discontinue the medication in May 2018, instead waiting until August 2018 to discontinue the medication, which allegedly caused the development of immune-mediated necrotizing myositis—a rare autoimmune disease.
Treating physicians and expert witnesses testified that prolonged statin use contributed to the condition. However, they could not state, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that delaying the discontinuation of the statin worsened the patient’s prognosis or reduced the effectiveness of treatment.
The Foran Glennon team effectively countered these claims by emphasizing the speculative nature of the plaintiff’s causation arguments. They highlighted deposition testimony from the plaintiff’s expert witnesses, who conceded that the impact of stopping the medication earlier could not be determined with certainty. One causation expert stated it would be “speculation” to suggest an earlier intervention would have improved the prognosis. Similarly, treating physicians acknowledged that the complex nature of the disease rendered definitive conclusions about causation impossible.
The Foran Glennon team also underscored the plaintiff’s failure to present evidence meeting the “more probably than not” causation standard required under Illinois law. They argued that the plaintiff’s claims were speculative and lacked the necessary causation opinion to establish proximate cause. The trial court granted the firm’s motion for summary judgment and denied the plaintiff’s motion to reconsider, which led to plaintiff’s appeal.
Appellate Decision
The Illinois Appellate Court affirmed the circuit court’s decision, agreeing that the plaintiff failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact on the element of proximate cause. The appellate court reiterated that, in medical malpractice cases, proximate cause cannot rest on speculation or possibility—it must be supported by testimony to a reasonable degree of medical certainty.
Focusing his practice on insurance and appellate law in both insurance and non-insurance disputes, Tom has experience representing both appellants and appellees in several state and federal courts nationwide. He is well-seasoned in a range of insurance coverage disputes, including property and liability coverage and litigation matters involving commercial and personal insurance.
Matthew has tried over 30 trials and concentrates his practice on medical malpractice. He employs his extensive civil litigation trial experience to develop strong defenses early on while keeping clients’ best interests as his top priority.
John centers his practice on civil litigation and medical malpractice. He utilizes his more than 35 years of experience representing clients to bring about as advantageous results as possible on their behalf.
Alex concentrates his practice in medical negligence, product liability and other civil actions. He uses strong legal writing skills, coupled with trial and appellate experience, to craft solutions that work for the benefit of his clients.