In its Opinion filed on March 31, 2026, the Appellate Court of Illinois First District Sixth Division stated: “We turn to the claim that defendants are entitled to a new trial due to the trial court’s rulings, both before and during trial, barring reference to plaintiff’s romantic relationship with Markowski in the years after Darci’s death. There is no dispute that plaintiff and Markowski cohabited but were not married. Defendants argue that such evidence was relevant to damages recoverable by plaintiff for his “grief and sorrow” (for which the jury awarded $3.5 million) and “loss of society,” for which the jury awarded another $5 million. They urge that the jury should have been given an opportunity to assess “the value of [plaintiff’s] relationship” with Markowski in weighing such damages. Defendants suggest that if the jury had been told that plaintiff has enjoyed a subsequent relationship for several years, it “would have significantly affected its award.” Instead, they urge the jury was “left with the false impression [plaintiff] has been alone, without any female companionship” since Darci’s death. They note plaintiff’s trial testimony that, after her death, he told his son that “it’s just going to be the two of us.””
“[W]e conclude that the decision to admit or preclude such evidence is a matter within the trial court’s discretion. However, because we cannot say the trial court abused its discretion in the instant case, we reject defendants’ claim of error on this point … Although this court might have reached a different conclusion had it been in the trial judge’s position, we cannot say that the decision to exclude the evidence was so unreasonable as to be an abuse of discretion. The trial court could have been legitimately concerned about problematic effects of such evidence, notwithstanding any probative value as to loss of consortium. Among other reasons, the trial court could reasonably determine that evidence that plaintiff began a new relationship after Darci’s death would unfairly prejudice the jury against plaintiff or that it might otherwise distract the jury’s attention from the core factual disputes in the case—namely, proof of the alleged negligence and causation. Thus, we find no error in the trial court’s decision to bar evidence of plaintiff’s subsequent relationship, as it pertains to loss of consortium.”
“To be clear, we are simply finding that this evidentiary ruling was a matter of the trial court’s discretion, which was not abused in this case. However, we note that the defendants make a valid point, insofar as they suggest that this issue should be freshly examined in light of current social views. There can be no doubt that societal attitudes about marriage and cohabiting relationships have changed significantly in the decades since Martin was decided. Many people no longer view the legal status of marriage as necessary to signify that a couple is in a serious committed relationship, especially if the couple is cohabiting. It is certainly plausible that a jury in a given case might consider a plaintiff’s subsequent relationship relevant in assessing loss of consortium damages, regardless of whether the plaintiff has remarried. Moreover, there is some appeal to defendants’ argument that their position aligns with the principle that decisions about marriage should be based on love, not money.”
Source White v. Advocate Condell Medical Center, 2026 IL App (1st) 240450.
If you or a loved one have suffered serious harm as a result of medical malpractice in Illinois or in another U.S. state, you should promptly find an Illinois medical malpractice lawyer or a medical malpractice lawyer in your state who may investigate your medical malpractice claim for you and represent you or your loved one in a medical malpractice case, if appropriate.
Click here to visit our website or call us toll-free in the United States at 800-295-3959 to find medical malpractice attorneys near you who may assist you.
Turn to us when you don’t know where to turn.
