Repository: UIHistories Project: Board of Trustees Minutes - 1984 [PAGE 422]

EXTRACTED TEXT FROM PAGE:

1983]

UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS

413

After his accident, Mr. Duke was reemployed by the University as an engineering technician. Sixty-six and two-thirds percent of the difference between what Mr. Duke is presently earning and what he would be able to earn as a roofer is $282.25 per week. Extended over the period of Mr. Duke's anticipated lifetime and discounted at 12 percent, the present value of an annuity of $282.25 per week is in excess of $118,000. Alternately, the Industrial Commission could award Mr. Duke a definite amount of compensation for certain injuries which are described as "scheduled" in the Act and which are each allocated a certain number of weeks of compensation. If this provision were to be applied by the Industrial Commission, it is estimated that Mr. Duke would be awarded from $50,000 to $75,000, and he would continue to be eligible for future medical expense reimbursement. Mr. Duke has offered to settle his claim against the University for a lumpsum payment of $60,000, or for an annuity purchased by the University for a $60,000 single premium. T h e terms of the settlement contract will allocate this payment between 100 percent loss of use of Mr. Duke's left leg and his future medical expenses. Thus far, in excess of $79,800 has been paid by the University because of Mr. Duke's injury. Settlement on the terms described above will close out all of Mr. Duke's rights against the University arising from this injury, including the right to have his future medical expenses for this injury paid by the University. T h e University Subcommittee on Workers' Compensation has recommended that the case be settled for an amount not to exceed $60,000. The university counsel and the vice president for business and finance concur. Funds are available in the FY 1984 appropriated funds budget of the Risk Management Workers' Compensation Program. I recommend approval.

On motion of Mr. Logan, this recommendation was approved by the following vote: Aye, Mrs. Day, Dr. Donoghue, Mr. Forsyth, Mr. Howard, Mr. Logan, Mr. Madden, Mr. Stone; no, none; absent, Mr. Hahn, Mrs. Shepherd, Governor Thompson. (The student advisory vote was: Aye, Mr. Bolen, Mr. Milkint; no, none.)

Settlement of Gutierrez Litigation

(3) Currently pending in the Circuit Court of Cook County (Case # 8 2 L 10862) is litigation initiated by the mother of Katie Gutierrez against Dr. Michael Schafer; Dr. Donald W. Day, director of the University's Center for Craniofacial Anomalies; and Children's Memorial Hospital, Chicago. The action seeks damages for alleged malpractice in the treatment of the child's birth defects. Those defects include a forehead which protrudes extensively, concavities beneath the orbits of the eye, a generalized deformity of the skull, respiratory problems, and the potential for eye injury due to the lack of bony protection around the eyes. After the patient was seen for diagnostic evaluation at the University's Center for Craniofacial Anomalies for approximately one year, it was concluded that a "mono-block" surgical procedure was in order. This is a radical surgical procedure which is the subject of some disagreement within the medical profession as to whether the risks involved are justified by the potential aesthetic and physical improvements. T h e diagnosis and planning for the surgery took place at the University of Illinois Hospital, but the surgery took place in Children's Memorial Hospital and lasted for approximately 14 consecutive hours. Following surgery, the child developed a severe postoperative infection. Subsequently, the child's parents consulted other physicians who have performed additional surgical procedures. T h e case is complicated by the fact that Dr. Michael Schafer threatens to sue both the Children's Memorial Hospital and the University of Illinois since both