locality rule in Illinois

1996The locality rule "requires a physician to possess and to apply that degree of knowledge, skill, and care which a reasonably well-qualified physician in the same or similar community would bring to a similar case under similar circumstances.” (Emphasis added.) Purtill, 111 Ill. 2d at 242 .

1996The locality rule "requires a physician to possess and to apply that degree of knowledge, skill, and care which a reasonably well-qualified physician in the same or similar community would bring to a similar case under similar circumstances." (Emphasis added.) Purtill, 111 Ill.2d at 242 , 95 Ill.Dec. 305 , 489 N.E.2d 867 .

1991App. 3d 925 , 486 N.E.2d 1329 .) As the Thompson court noted, the locality rule applicable to a defendant “should not be narrowed any further than is necessary to promote the rationale.” (Thompson v. Webb, 138 Ill.

1991App. 3d at 636-37 , 486 N.E.2d at 330 .) In this case, defendant inappropriately attempts to employ the locality rule to defeat plaintiff’s claim rather than as a method to shield a practitioner who has less opportunity for education or limited facilities.

2002Weaver , 255 F.3d at 382 .

2002Weaver, 255 F.3d at 382 .

1987App. 2d 174, 184 , 262 N.E.2d 156 .) Plaintiff correctly states that the locality rule does not apply to the issue of informed consent, and Dr. Radecki was thus not disqualified from testifying as to that matter.

1985Second, plaintiff maintains that application of the “similar locality” rule is inconsistent with those cases dealing with “informed consent,” e.g., Green v. Hussey (1970), 127 Ill.

1986App. 3d 1060 , 458 N.E.2d 1072 .) A medical expert must then demonstrate his familiarity with the standard of care under the locality rule before his testimony may establish the standard of care.

1985As this court remarked in Bartimus, a less stringent version of the rule has developed, whereunder a physician’s conduct is judged by the standard of care of a reasonably competent physician practicing “in the same or similar communities.” The Illinois appellate courts follow this “similar locality” rule in determining the standard of care applicable to a physician (see Bartimus v. Paxton Community Hospital (1983), 120 Ill.

1985App. 3d 939 , 408 N.E.2d 970 .) In recent years, the locality rule has not been extended beyond its rationale.

1983Schireson v. Walsh (1933), 354 Ill. 40 , 187 N.E. 921 ; Hirn v. Edgewater Hospital (1980), 86 Ill.

1985(Chamness v. Odum (1979), 80 Ill.

1985In Chamness v. Odum (1979), 80 Ill.

1993Ed. 2d at 299-300, 110 S. Ct. at 2896 .) Therefore, the Court held that since both the locality test, that is, an alleged wrong occurring on navigable waters, and the nexus test, a substantial relationship to traditional maritime activities, were satisfied, Federal admiralty jurisdiction was proper.

1991Defendant maintains that Dr. Niechajev’s post-1982 experience should not be considered because defendant’s alleged negligent acts occurred in 1981 and 1982, relying on Smith v. South Shore Hospital (1989), 187 Ill.

1991App. 3d 925 , 486 N.E.2d 1329 .) As the Thompson court noted, the locality rule applicable to a defendant “should not be narrowed any further than is necessary to promote the rationale.” (Thompson v. Webb, 138 Ill.

1987(Murdy v. Edgar (1984), 103 Ill. 2d 384, 394 , 469 N.E.2d 1085 .) While the offered facts may be subject to judicial notice, they were of little probative value for purposes of the locality rule, as they were only remotely relevant to medical conditions and facilities.

1987(Murdy v. Edgar (1984), 103 Ill. 2d 384, 394 , 469 N.E.2d 1085 .) While the offered facts may be subject to judicial notice, they were of little probative value for purposes of the locality rule, as they were only remotely relevant to medical conditions and facilities.

1986App. 3d 538, 544 , 490 N.E.2d 181, 185 .) Plaintiff’s experts must demonstrate a familiarity with the standard of care under the similar locality rule prior to testifying as to the standard of care by which defendants’ conduct is to be measured, the negligent or wilful failure to meet that standard, and the fact that the failure to meet the standard was the proximate cause of plaintiff’s injury. ( 141 Ill.

1986App. 3d 538, 544 , 490 N.E.2d 181, 185 .) Plaintiff’s experts must demonstrate a familiarity with the standard of care under the similar locality rule prior to testifying as to the standard of care by which defendants’ conduct is to be measured, the negligent or wilful failure to meet that standard, and the fact that the failure to meet the standard was the proximate cause of plaintiff’s injury. ( 141 Ill.

1986(Guebard v. Jabaay (1983), 117 Ill.

1986App. 3d 538, 543-44 , 490 N.E.2d 181, 185 ; Carter v. Dunlop (1985), 138 Ill.

1985App. 3d 634 , 343 N.E.2d 589 .) However, it still adheres to the locality rule.

1985First, plaintiff suggests that Darling v. Charleston Community Me-mortal Hospital (1965), 33 Ill. 2d 326 , 211 N.E.2d 253 , finding a hospital’s standard of care not conclusively determined by what is done in other hospitals in the community, be extended to physicians.

1985First, plaintiff suggests that Darling v. Charleston Community Me-mortal Hospital (1965), 33 Ill. 2d 326 , 211 N.E.2d 253 , finding a hospital’s standard of care not conclusively determined by what is done in other hospitals in the community, be extended to physicians.

1983(See, e.g., Walls v. Boyett (1950), 216 Ark. 541 , 226 S.W.2d 552 ; Chandler v. Neosho Memorial Hospital (1977), 223 Kan. 1 , 574 P.2d 136 ; Callahan v. William Beaumont Hospital (1976), 67 Mich. App. 306 , 240 N.W.2d 781 , aff’d (1977), 400 Mich. 177 , 254 N.W.2d 31 ; Larsen v. Yelle (1976), 310 Minn. 521 , 246 N.W.2d 841 ; Little v. Cross (1976), 217 Va. 71 , 225 S.E.2d 387 .) While this standard helps alleviate, to some degree, problems associated with the reluctance of physicians to testify against a colleague practicing in their community, it does not remedy the other potential problem: a

1983(See, e.g., Walls v. Boyett (1950), 216 Ark. 541 , 226 S.W.2d 552 ; Chandler v. Neosho Memorial Hospital (1977), 223 Kan. 1 , 574 P.2d 136 ; Callahan v. William Beaumont Hospital (1976), 67 Mich. App. 306 , 240 N.W.2d 781 , aff’d (1977), 400 Mich. 177 , 254 N.W.2d 31 ; Larsen v. Yelle (1976), 310 Minn. 521 , 246 N.W.2d 841 ; Little v. Cross (1976), 217 Va. 71 , 225 S.E.2d 387 .) While this standard helps alleviate, to some degree, problems associated with the reluctance of physicians to testify against a colleague practicing in their community, it does not remedy the other potential problem: a

1983Schireson v. Walsh (1933), 354 Ill. 40 , 187 N.E. 921 ; Hirn v. Edgewater Hospital (1980), 86 Ill.

1983Schireson v. Walsh (1933), 354 Ill. 40 , 187 N.E. 921 ; Hirn v. Edgewater Hospital (1980), 86 Ill.

1983(See, e.g., Walls v. Boyett (1950), 216 Ark. 541 , 226 S.W.2d 552 ; Chandler v. Neosho Memorial Hospital (1977), 223 Kan. 1 , 574 P.2d 136 ; Callahan v. William Beaumont Hospital (1976), 67 Mich. App. 306 , 240 N.W.2d 781 , aff’d (1977), 400 Mich. 177 , 254 N.W.2d 31 ; Larsen v. Yelle (1976), 310 Minn. 521 , 246 N.W.2d 841 ; Little v. Cross (1976), 217 Va. 71 , 225 S.E.2d 387 .) While this standard helps alleviate, to some degree, problems associated with the reluctance of physicians to testify against a colleague practicing in their community, it does not remedy the other potential problem: a

1983(See, e.g., Walls v. Boyett (1950), 216 Ark. 541 , 226 S.W.2d 552 ; Chandler v. Neosho Memorial Hospital (1977), 223 Kan. 1 , 574 P.2d 136 ; Callahan v. William Beaumont Hospital (1976), 67 Mich. App. 306 , 240 N.W.2d 781 , aff’d (1977), 400 Mich. 177 , 254 N.W.2d 31 ; Larsen v. Yelle (1976), 310 Minn. 521 , 246 N.W.2d 841 ; Little v. Cross (1976), 217 Va. 71 , 225 S.E.2d 387 .) While this standard helps alleviate, to some degree, problems associated with the reluctance of physicians to testify against a colleague practicing in their community, it does not remedy the other potential problem: a

1983(See, e.g., Walls v. Boyett (1950), 216 Ark. 541 , 226 S.W.2d 552 ; Chandler v. Neosho Memorial Hospital (1977), 223 Kan. 1 , 574 P.2d 136 ; Callahan v. William Beaumont Hospital (1976), 67 Mich. App. 306 , 240 N.W.2d 781 , aff’d (1977), 400 Mich. 177 , 254 N.W.2d 31 ; Larsen v. Yelle (1976), 310 Minn. 521 , 246 N.W.2d 841 ; Little v. Cross (1976), 217 Va. 71 , 225 S.E.2d 387 .) While this standard helps alleviate, to some degree, problems associated with the reluctance of physicians to testify against a colleague practicing in their community, it does not remedy the other potential problem: a

1983(See, e.g., Walls v. Boyett (1950), 216 Ark. 541 , 226 S.W.2d 552 ; Chandler v. Neosho Memorial Hospital (1977), 223 Kan. 1 , 574 P.2d 136 ; Callahan v. William Beaumont Hospital (1976), 67 Mich. App. 306 , 240 N.W.2d 781 , aff’d (1977), 400 Mich. 177 , 254 N.W.2d 31 ; Larsen v. Yelle (1976), 310 Minn. 521 , 246 N.W.2d 841 ; Little v. Cross (1976), 217 Va. 71 , 225 S.E.2d 387 .) While this standard helps alleviate, to some degree, problems associated with the reluctance of physicians to testify against a colleague practicing in their community, it does not remedy the other potential problem: a

1983(See Cowman v. Hornaday (Iowa 1983), 329 N.W.2d 422, 425 ; see also Harnish v. Children’s Hospital Medical Center (1982), 387 Mass. 152 , 156 n.4, 439 N.E.2d 240 , 243 n.4 (collecting cases from 13 other jurisdictions).) This rule substitutes a national standard of reasonable and ordinary care for the traditional locality standard.

1983(See, e.g., Walls v. Boyett (1950), 216 Ark. 541 , 226 S.W.2d 552 ; Chandler v. Neosho Memorial Hospital (1977), 223 Kan. 1 , 574 P.2d 136 ; Callahan v. William Beaumont Hospital (1976), 67 Mich. App. 306 , 240 N.W.2d 781 , aff’d (1977), 400 Mich. 177 , 254 N.W.2d 31 ; Larsen v. Yelle (1976), 310 Minn. 521 , 246 N.W.2d 841 ; Little v. Cross (1976), 217 Va. 71 , 225 S.E.2d 387 .) While this standard helps alleviate, to some degree, problems associated with the reluctance of physicians to testify against a colleague practicing in their community, it does not remedy the other potential problem: a

1983(See, e.g., Walls v. Boyett (1950), 216 Ark. 541 , 226 S.W.2d 552 ; Chandler v. Neosho Memorial Hospital (1977), 223 Kan. 1 , 574 P.2d 136 ; Callahan v. William Beaumont Hospital (1976), 67 Mich. App. 306 , 240 N.W.2d 781 , aff’d (1977), 400 Mich. 177 , 254 N.W.2d 31 ; Larsen v. Yelle (1976), 310 Minn. 521 , 246 N.W.2d 841 ; Little v. Cross (1976), 217 Va. 71 , 225 S.E.2d 387 .) While this standard helps alleviate, to some degree, problems associated with the reluctance of physicians to testify against a colleague practicing in their community, it does not remedy the other potential problem: a

1983(See, e.g., Walls v. Boyett (1950), 216 Ark. 541 , 226 S.W.2d 552 ; Chandler v. Neosho Memorial Hospital (1977), 223 Kan. 1 , 574 P.2d 136 ; Callahan v. William Beaumont Hospital (1976), 67 Mich. App. 306 , 240 N.W.2d 781 , aff’d (1977), 400 Mich. 177 , 254 N.W.2d 31 ; Larsen v. Yelle (1976), 310 Minn. 521 , 246 N.W.2d 841 ; Little v. Cross (1976), 217 Va. 71 , 225 S.E.2d 387 .) While this standard helps alleviate, to some degree, problems associated with the reluctance of physicians to testify against a colleague practicing in their community, it does not remedy the other potential problem: a

1983(See, e.g., Walls v. Boyett (1950), 216 Ark. 541 , 226 S.W.2d 552 ; Chandler v. Neosho Memorial Hospital (1977), 223 Kan. 1 , 574 P.2d 136 ; Callahan v. William Beaumont Hospital (1976), 67 Mich. App. 306 , 240 N.W.2d 781 , aff’d (1977), 400 Mich. 177 , 254 N.W.2d 31 ; Larsen v. Yelle (1976), 310 Minn. 521 , 246 N.W.2d 841 ; Little v. Cross (1976), 217 Va. 71 , 225 S.E.2d 387 .) While this standard helps alleviate, to some degree, problems associated with the reluctance of physicians to testify against a colleague practicing in their community, it does not remedy the other potential problem: a

1983(See, e.g., Walls v. Boyett (1950), 216 Ark. 541 , 226 S.W.2d 552 ; Chandler v. Neosho Memorial Hospital (1977), 223 Kan. 1 , 574 P.2d 136 ; Callahan v. William Beaumont Hospital (1976), 67 Mich. App. 306 , 240 N.W.2d 781 , aff’d (1977), 400 Mich. 177 , 254 N.W.2d 31 ; Larsen v. Yelle (1976), 310 Minn. 521 , 246 N.W.2d 841 ; Little v. Cross (1976), 217 Va. 71 , 225 S.E.2d 387 .) While this standard helps alleviate, to some degree, problems associated with the reluctance of physicians to testify against a colleague practicing in their community, it does not remedy the other potential problem: a

1983(See, e.g., Walls v. Boyett (1950), 216 Ark. 541 , 226 S.W.2d 552 ; Chandler v. Neosho Memorial Hospital (1977), 223 Kan. 1 , 574 P.2d 136 ; Callahan v. William Beaumont Hospital (1976), 67 Mich. App. 306 , 240 N.W.2d 781 , aff’d (1977), 400 Mich. 177 , 254 N.W.2d 31 ; Larsen v. Yelle (1976), 310 Minn. 521 , 246 N.W.2d 841 ; Little v. Cross (1976), 217 Va. 71 , 225 S.E.2d 387 .) While this standard helps alleviate, to some degree, problems associated with the reluctance of physicians to testify against a colleague practicing in their community, it does not remedy the other potential problem: a

1976Francis Hospital & School of Nursing, Inc. (1968), 201 Kan. 687 , 442 P.2d 1013 , the Supreme Court of Kansas, following the same locality rule, held that a doctor from Topeka should have been allowed to testify although he had never practiced in Wichita where he stated that the standards of care were the same.

1976Francis Hospital & School of Nursing, Inc. (1968), 201 Kan. 687 , 442 P.2d 1013 , the Supreme Court of Kansas, following the same locality rule, held that a doctor from Topeka should have been allowed to testify although he had never practiced in Wichita where he stated that the standards of care were the same.

1976And the Supreme Court of California, in Lewis v. Johnson (1939), 12 Cal. 2d 558, 561 , 86 P.2d 99, 101 , in holding that doctors from Los Angeles could testify as to the standard of care in Long Beach (also in the same country) remarked that: * * But to make the exclusion rest arbitrarily upon a geographical line separating two cities of the same county, with almost identical medical service, would be a misuse of the rules of evidence and an unjustifiable emphasis on empty technicalities.” We therefore conclude that this contention is without merit.

1976And the Supreme Court of California, in Lewis v. Johnson (1939), 12 Cal. 2d 558, 561 , 86 P.2d 99, 101 , in holding that doctors from Los Angeles could testify as to the standard of care in Long Beach (also in the same country) remarked that: * * But to make the exclusion rest arbitrarily upon a geographical line separating two cities of the same county, with almost identical medical service, would be a misuse of the rules of evidence and an unjustifiable emphasis on empty technicalities.” We therefore conclude that this contention is without merit.