An Illinois Court of Appeals has thrown out a settlement agreement between an orthopedic surgeon and his patient when it determined that the agreement was not entered into in good faith.
Antwon Ross was a conductor for the Illinois Central Railroad Company. In January 2013, Ross fell while attempting to board a moving train. He injured his head, neck, and back. Ross was taken to a local hospital, where he was diagnosed with a compression fracture of the T12 vertebra and treated for a head contusion and scalp laceration.
Ross began seeing orthopedic surgeon Dr. Sarmed Elias for treatment. Over the next few years, Ross received treatment from Dr. Elias, including two vertebroplasties, multiple nerve blocks for pain control, steroid injections, office visits, and physical therapy sessions. Ross was ultimately unable to return to work and is currently on disability.
Ross sued Illinois Central Railroad Company, claiming that his injuries were the result of his employer’s negligence. Illinois Central filed a third-party complaint against Dr. Elias, arguing that the doctor had “significantly aggravated” Ross’s injuries.
Illinois Central hired neurosurgeon Dr. Andrew Zelby to evaluate the reasonableness and necessity of the medical treatment administered by Dr. Elias. Dr. Zelby reviewed Ross’s medical records and concluded that none of the procedures, except for possibly the first vertebroplasty, were reasonable or necessary.
Dr. Zelby also noted that Dr. Elias had made obvious changes to Ross’s medical records, which was “unconscionable and unquestionably a deviation from the standard of care.” Dr. Elias later admitted in a deposition that he had altered Ross’s medical records but testified that he could not recall the changes that he had made.
In January 2018, Dr. Elias and Ross agreed to settle. Dr. Elias paid Ross $25,000 to fully settle any claim that Dr. Elias had contributed to any injuries suffered by Ross. The circuit court approved the settlement, finding that it had been made in good faith.
Illinois Central Railroad Company appealed. In Ross v. Illinois Central Railroad Co. (Elias), the First District Appellate Court of Illinois reversed the circuit court and concluded that Dr. Elias had not settled with Ross in good faith.
The court noted that Dr. Elias had significant potential liability. Illinois Central estimated that Ross’s claim, including the liens for medical bills, future earnings, and loss of pension benefits would total over $3.5 million.
The court wrote, “there was undeniably damning evidence from the railroad’s expert regarding Dr. Elias’s deviations from the standard of care and reason to believe that the parties were aware of the corroborative testimony from Mr. Ross’s own medical expert. Dr. Elias had an insurance policy covering up to $1 million per claim, and there is no reason to believe that he could not pay a substantial judgment. Mr. Ross had a potential claim of several million dollars. Against all this, finding that a settlement of $25,000 was entered into in good faith was an abuse of discretion.”
