Melendez v. Wiesman

── Melendez v. Wiesman ── Court: Appellate Court of Illinois Date: May 08, 2026 Category: General 2026 IL App (1st) 251142-U SIXTH DIVISION May 8, 2026 No. 1-25-1142 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1). ______________________________________________________________________________ IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST DISTRICT ______________________________________________________________________________ IRIS MELENDEZ, ) Appeal from the Circuit Court ) of Cook County. Plaintiff-Appellant, ) ) ) v. ) No. 21 L 9639 ) IRVIN WIESMAN, M.D. and IRVIN WIESMAN, M.D., ) Honorable S.C., ) Thomas M. Cushing, ) Judge, presiding. Defendants-Appellees. ) PRESIDING JUSTICE C.A. WALKER delivered the judgment of the court. Justices Pucinski and Hyman concurred in the judgment. ORDER ¶1 Held: The circuit court’s order denying plaintiff’s motion for a new trial is affirmed because the court’s handling of a jury question was within its discretion, and the record is insufficient for review of plaintiff’s claims that the court erred by denying her motion for a mistrial, engaging in improper conduct during closing arguments, and permitting cumulative testimony. No. 1-25-1142 ¶2 Plaintiff Iris Melendez sued the defendant Irvin Wiesman, M.D. (Wiesman), and his self- titled corporation Irvin Wiesman M.D., S.C. (S.C.), for medical negligence related to a surgical procedure Wiesman performed on Melendez. Following trial, the jury entered a general verdict for the defendants. Melendez filed a post-trial motion, alleging that the circuit court (1) erred by not granting a mistrial after certain photos were improperly shown to the jury, (2) prejudiced her through its conduct during her attorney’s closing argument, (3) did not sufficiently respond to a jury question, and (4) permitted cumulative expert witness testimony. The court denied Melendez’s post-trial motion, and she appealed. For the reasons below, we affirm. ¶3 BACKGROUND ¶4 Melendez filed her complaint on September 29, 2021. The surgical procedure at issue had four primary aspects: (1) scar tissue removal, (2) removal of ruptured breast implants, (3) replacement of the implants, and (4) a “vertical breast lift.” The procedure occurred on April 7, 2015. On May 27, 2015, Melendez returned to Wiesman’s facility and complained of “redness around the areola and surgical site, and scabbing on and near the surgical scar.” Wiesman allegedly only responded that this was “normal.” By June 10, however, her symptoms worsened, and she contacted her primary care physician after being unable to contact Wiesman. Melendez’s primary care physician diagnosed her with an infection and prescribed antibiotics on June 11. That same day, an ultrasound examination revealed “an infectious lump in [Melendez’s] breast.” Melendez was hospitalized for treatment of a “severe breast infection” from June 11 to June 14, 2015. ¶5 The matter proceeded to a jury trial in October 2024. Before trial started, Melendez voluntarily dism