Hearsay Evidence- State of Mind Exception
The Illinois Appellate Court has affirmed a judgment by Cook County Circuit Judge Daniel M . Lacallo. In Heather Guski v. Asim Raja, et al, the plaintiff, Heather Guski, brought a wrongful death claim against Dr.Asim Raja, the doctor who treated Guski’s father Gerald Parkison before he died. Parkison was seen by Dr. Raja in December 1999 when he went to an emergency room after he experienced headaches, vomiting, dizziness and body aches. Parkison was diagnosed with an upper respiratory infection, was prescribed antibiotics, and sent home with instructions. Four days later, Parkison was found dead in his home.
The plaintiff’s theory was that Dr. Raja failed to take an adequate medical history and failed to order a CT scan. This test would have detected bleeding on the brain. The plaintiff’s and the defendant’s medical experts concluded with no real consensus and as to what exactly caused the death. As a result, the circuit court granted the defendant’s partial directed verdict as to whether Raja took an adequate history. The jury found for the defendants. The plaintiffs appealed and claimed the circuit court erred in their rulings on several motions in limine.
The defendants had moved to exclude hearsay statements by Parkinson made to his son and ex wife about his headaches. The plaintiff claimed on appeal that she sought to use the hearsay statement to prove that Parkison suffered severe headaches. ( Hearsay statements are out of court statements offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted and are generally inadmissible unless they fall within certain exceptions. ) The plaintiff argued that this testimony was an exception because it was evidence of Parkison’s state of mind before going to the hospital. A hearsay statement admitted under the state-of-mind exception may only be used for the limited purpose permitted by the exception, not for its own truth. People v. Munoz, 398 Ill. App. 3d 455, 482 (2010). The court did not buy this argument and felt that the plaintiff was seeking “to use the content of the hearsay statement to prove its truth which is precisely what the hearsay rule seeks to prevent.” The appellate court affirmed the jury verdict and stated that the jury simply believed the defendant’s experts over the plaintiffs.
