Holzrichter Vs.

Yorath
I.

II.

Raven Pearson
Alejandro Franchini
Fadhil Qassab
Kyle Triplett

Procedures
A. Who are the parties?
-Scott Holzrichter and Martin Yorath
B. Who Brought the action?
Scott Holzrichter
C. In What Court did the case originate?
-First District, First Division
D. Who won at the trial-court level?
-Case was dismissed but Dr. Yorath moved for summary judgment on the
sole remaining claim for medical battery, and the court granted that
motion.
E. What is the appellate history of the case?
-All appeals were dismissed.
Facts.
A. What are the relevant facts as recited by this court?
1) Plaintiff holds rep stubs his big toe while running on a sidewalk in
1995 at night, and waited 7 years to see a doctor for it.
2) Plaintiff finally sees defendant Dr. Yorath in 2002
3) Plaintiff testified that he did not seek medical treatment at the
time he stubbed his toe. Plaintiff thought with time it would heal
because I did not really know the state of my footand it didnt.
4) On November 19, 2002, a Scholl College physician examined
plaintiff at Community Health Clinic and diagnosed his left foot
ailment as hallux abducto valgus.
5) Dr. Yorath suggested surgery on January 21,2003. Plaintiff did not
want his tendon to be cut, but Dr. Yorath said it was standard
procedure.
6) Surgery was performed on February 18, 2003 where plaintiff
signed a release form stating he understood the surgery to be
done.
7) Plaintiff subsequently developed an infection within a few days
after surgery due to his unsanitary dressing of the wound with
toilet tissue.
8) Due to plaintiffs refusing to take Dr. Yorath medical advice to take
antibiotics his foot eventually developed edema and erythema was
present to the mid calf.
9) Dr. Yorath stated that the plaintiff has osteomyelitis

10) Plaintiff continued to refuse Dr. Yoraths advice months after the
surgery to take antibiotics and to stay off his foot, adding to
complications following surgery.
11)On February 18, 2005, plaintiff filed a pro se complaint in the
circuit court. He alleged medical malpractice and medical battery
against Dr. Yorath in count I. He claimed medical malpractice and
medical battery under the doctrine of respondent superior.
12)Medical malpractice, Medical battery claim, antitrust claims,
Mandamus claims, Punitive damages claims, denial of leave to add
various additional claims, plaintiff amended his original complaint
3 times and all his claims were dismissed.
13)The case was prevented from going to trial.
B. Do you agree with the way the court has framed those issues?
-Why didnt any doctors tell the plaintiff that the procedure he
received was standard?
- Why wasnt the plaintiff stopped from pursing the case years earlier?
III.
Issues.
A. What are the precise issues being litigated, as stated by the court?
-Medical malpractice, Medical battery claim, antitrust claims,
Mandamus claims, Punitive damages claims, denial of leave to add
various additional claims.
B. Do you agree with the way the court has framed those issues?
-Yes we agree with the way the court has framed those issues because, the
court properly dismissed the appropriate accounts in a fair manner.
IV.

Holding.
A. What is the courts precise holding (decision)?
-The court properly dismissed counts 2, 3, 7, 8, and 9 of the plaintiffs 3rd
amended complaint.
B. What is its rationale for the decision?
-There was no evidence found and a lack of expert testimony to support the
plaintiffs claims.
C. Do you agree with that rationale?
- Yes, based on the courts reasonable judgment and the lack of evidence from
the plaintiff.

V.

Implications.
A. What does the case mean for healthcare today?
- This case means that patients who have outrageous claims, similar to
the plaintiff, will be stopped before taking the case to trial.

B. What were the implications when the decision was announced?

- The plaintiff was denied leave to file a fourth amended complaint,
therefore plaintiffs cant continue to add amendments ad infinitum.
C. How should healthcare administrators prepare to deal with these
implications?
- Healthcare administrators should be sure they have adequate legal
representation and that the agreements that are entered into with
patients contain language to prevent ongoing scenarios similar to this
case.
D. What would be different today if the case had been decided
differently?
- Healthcare providers would be at constant risk of litigation due to the
fact that any patient could pursue legal action for frivolous lawsuits for
any length of time.