The Illinois Appellate Court has upheld a $7.5 million jury verdict against Advocate Health and Hospitals Corporation and its staff for negligence in a childbirth case that resulted in the death of a newborn. The ruling, made on November 13, 2026, affects the hospital and medical professionals involved, as well as the family of the deceased infant, Cianie Flores.

The case arose after Jeryis Flores went into labor at Advocate Illinois Masonic Medical Center. During the delivery, obstetrician Dr. Silvia Bicalho and nurse Josephine Jimenez allegedly failed to monitor the fetal heart rate properly and did not intervene in a timely manner, leading to complications that ultimately caused Cianie's death. The plaintiffs, Jeryis Flores and Carlos Flores, brought the case to trial, where a jury found in their favor after three weeks of testimony.

The jury's decision was based on claims that Dr. Bicalho and nurse Jimenez acted negligently in their management of the labor. The court's ruling is significant as it reinforces the importance of timely medical intervention during childbirth and sets a precedent for similar cases involving medical negligence.

Background

In the case of Flores v. Advocate Health and Hospitals Corp. (Docket No. 1-25-2198), the plaintiffs claimed that the medical staff failed to take appropriate actions during labor, which they argued led to the death of their daughter, Cianie. The trial began in January 2025 in Cook County, Illinois, before Judge Nichole C. Patton.

On September 26, 2018, Jeryis Flores arrived at the hospital in labor. By the time nurse Jimenez began caring for her, Jeryis was already nine centimeters dilated. Throughout the labor, medical staff used electronic fetal monitoring to track Cianie's heart rate. However, as labor progressed, the fetal heart rate showed signs of distress, and the medical staff did not take the necessary steps to address the situation until it was too late.

The plaintiffs alleged that Dr. Bicalho failed to act on concerning fetal heart rate patterns and did not order an emergency cesarean section in a timely manner. Expert witnesses for the plaintiffs testified that earlier intervention could have saved Cianie's life, while defense experts argued that the medical staff acted appropriately given the circumstances.

The Ruling

The Illinois Appellate Court ruled that the trial court's handling of jury instructions and responses to jury questions were appropriate. The court stated, "A unanimous verdict required each juror to find that the defendant under consideration was negligent and that the defendant’s negligence proximately caused plaintiffs’ injuries." However, the court clarified that jurors did not need to agree on which specific act of negligence led to the verdict.

The defendants contended that the trial court's jury instructions deprived them of their constitutional right to a unanimous verdict because jurors could have based their findings on different acts of negligence. The appellate court disagreed, affirming the trial court's decision and stating that the jury's agreement on the overall findings of negligence was sufficient.

Impact

This ruling has significant implications for medical negligence cases in Illinois. It establishes that jurors can reach a unanimous verdict based on differing opinions regarding specific acts of negligence, as long as they agree on the overall findings of negligence and causation. This may encourage more plaintiffs to pursue medical negligence claims, knowing that a unanimous agreement on every specific act is not required.

The decision also reinforces the importance of timely medical intervention during childbirth. Hospitals and medical practitioners may need to review their protocols and training to ensure that they are adequately prepared to respond to complications during labor, as failure to do so could lead to substantial financial liabilities.

What's Next

The defendants in this case may seek further legal recourse, potentially appealing the decision to the Illinois Supreme Court. However, details regarding any pending appeals or related cases were not available in the court filing.