Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

367 Ill. App. 3d 591

855 N.E.2d 261

305 Ill.Dec. 370

Ayala v. Murad

Appellate Court of Illinois

Decided September 12, 2006

Appellate Court of Illinois · decided 2006-09-12

Relies on 259 Ill. App. 3d 730 - Glassman v. St. Joseph Hospital · 354 Ill. App. 3d 515 - Gallina v. Watson

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2006-09-12

How this case has been cited

Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently March 2026 · most notably 402 Ill. App. 3d 830 - Johnson v. Ingalls Memorial Hospital (2010), 384 Ill. App. 3d 115 - Johnson v. Loyola University Medical Center (2008)

32 state decisions

210200620102020decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PRESIDING JUSTICE WOLFSON,

¶1specially concurring:

¶2I agree the trial court committed reversible error when it limited Dr. Goldstein’s testimony, and I agree a new trial is warranted, but I do not agree with the majority’s position on Dr. Young’s stricken testimony concerning whether he would have mentioned cancer and stroma invasion to Michelle Ayala’s gynecological oncologist.

¶3It is true that an expert cannot be asked about his own conduct in order to establish a defendant doctor’s deviation from or adherence to the standard of care. See Glassman v. St. Joseph Hospital, 259 Ill. App. 3d 730 (1994). But that was not the point of the question asked of Dr. Young. Counsel was trying to attack the persuasive value of Dr. Young’s opinions. It was an attack on his credibility. That is permissible. See Gallina v. Watson, 354 Ill. App. 3d 515, 521 (2004). If opposing counsel fears jury misuse of the testimony, a limiting instruction can be used to confine the jury to a proper consideration of the evidence.

/367/illapp3d/591 · .json · Public domain