Burger v. Lutheran General Hosp.
Decision Date | 18 October 2001 |
Docket Number | No. 89643, No. 89644. |
Parties | Doris BURGER, Appellee, v. LUTHERAN GENERAL HOSPITAL et al., Appellants. |
Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
Eugene A. Schoon, Susan A. Weber and Darin V. Osmond, of Sidley & Austin, Chicago, for appellants Lutheran General Hospital et al.
Hugh C. Griffin, Hugh S. Balsam and Sarah H. Dearing, of Lord, Bissell & Brook, Chicago, for appellants Rush-Presbyterian-St. Luke's Medical Center et al.
Keith A. Hebeisen, of Clifford Law Offices, and Bruce R. Pfaff, Chicago, for appellee.
Richard A. Devine, State's Attorney, Chicago (Patrick T. Driscoll, Jr., and Sara Dillery Hynes, Assistant State's Attorneys, of counsel), for amicus curiae County of Cook.
Thaddeus J. Nodzenski and Mark D. Deaton, Naperville, for amicus curiae Illinois Hospital & Healthsystems Association.
Herbert H. Franks and Dennis A. Rendleman, Springfield, for amicus curiae Illinois State Bar Association.
At issue in these consolidated cases is whether certain provisions of section 6.17 of the Hospital Licensing Act (Act) (210 ILCS 85/6.17 (West 2000)), as amended by Public Act 91-526 , violate the Illinois Constitution of 1970. The circuit court of Cook County held that portions of sections 6.17(d) and (e) and all of section 6.17(h) violate the doctrine of separation of powers (Ill. Const. 1970, art. II, § 1). The circuit court also found that portions of subsections (d) and (e) of section 6.17 violate a patient's right to privacy with respect to medical information (Ill. Const. 1970, art. I, §§ 6, 12). However, the circuit court rejected plaintiff's contention that the challenged provisions of the Act constituted impermissible special legislation. Ill. Const. 1970, art. IV, § 13. The circuit court severed the provisions it found unconstitutional from the remainder of section 6.17. Defendants appealed directly to this court. 134 Ill.2d R. 302(a). For the reasons that follow, we reverse in part, affirm in part, and remand this cause to the circuit court for further proceedings.
During the early afternoon of December 12, 1996, plaintiff, Doris Burger, went to the emergency room of Lutheran General Hospital (Hospital) with a leg injury. Within a few hours, after examination and treatment, plaintiff was released. On the evening of December 13, 1996, plaintiff was admitted to the Hospital for intravenous antibiotic therapy. On December 16, 1996, plaintiff's leg was amputated at the knee. Plaintiff thereafter filed a medical malpractice complaint in the law division of the circuit court of Cook County, naming four doctors, the Hospital and the Hospital's parent corporation as defendants. Plaintiff alleged that the Hospital was negligent in the care provided to her in the Hospital's emergency room on December 12, 1996. In addition, plaintiff alleged that the Hospital was negligent in several respects during her admission from December 13 to December 16, 1996.
Discovery in plaintiff's case was ongoing at the time that Public Act 91-526 became effective on January 1, 2000. This Public Act, which was unanimously passed by the Illinois General Assembly, amended section 6.17 of the Act, which governs protection of, and confidential access to, a hospital patient's medical records and information. Public Act 91-526 added several new subsections to section 6.17, including subparagraphs (d) and (e), which are challenged by plaintiff in this appeal. Public Act 91-526 also relettered the subsections which were originally part of the preamended version of section 6.17. One of these provisions, now lettered as subparagraph (h), is also challenged by plaintiff at bar. Pertinent provisions of section 6.17 provide:
On January 19, 2000, plaintiff filed with the circuit court an emergency motion to bar ex parte communication between the Hospital's counsel and those members of its medical staff, agents, and employees who provided health care to plaintiff but were not named as defendants in plaintiff's complaint. Plaintiff's motion also requested that the circuit court declare subsection (e) of section 6.17 unconstitutional on the basis that it violates the separation of powers and the personal privacy rights of Illinois plaintiffs. The circuit court ordered that, pending disposition on the merits of plaintiff's motion, counsel for the Hospital was not to communicate outside the presence of plaintiff's attorney with any of plaintiff's health-care providers, other than those who were specifically alleged to be negligent in plaintiff's complaint and whose negligence could be imputed to the Hospital. On February 3, 2000, plaintiff filed with the circuit court an amended motion wherein plaintiff additionally sought the invalidation of subparagraphs (d) and (h) of section 6.17 of the Act.
At the time plaintiff filed these motions in the circuit court of Cook County, several similar motions were pending in that court's law division. On February 17, 2000, the presiding judge of the law division of the Cook County circuit court entered an order intended to "efficiently and fairly deal with the multitude of motions" filed in the law division which challenged the constitutionality of section 6.17 of the Act. The order stated that the "interests of justice and judicial economy are best served by the designation of one judge to hear the motions on a consolidated basis." Plaintiff's case was thereafter designated the lead case in the consolidated proceedings.
With the leave of the circuit court, plaintiff filed a fifth complaint at law on February 18, 2000, which added a fourth count to plaintiff's action. Count I of plaintiff's complaint, captioned "entity liability," alleges that on December 12, 1996, and on December 13 through 16, 1996, the Hospital and its parent corporations, "acting through their employees and agents," negligently failed to admit plaintiff to the hospital, failed to provide "timely and competent physician care," failed to "properly diagnose and treat her condition of ill being," failed to "obtain timely and appropriate consultations," and negligently discharged plaintiff from the emergency room. Plaintiff did not identify by name any employee or agent of the Hospital as a defendant in this count. Counts II and III of plaintiff's complaint alleged specific acts of negligence by certain named physicians "acting within the scope and course of their agency relationship" with the Hospital and its parent corporations. The newly added count IV requested that the circuit court declare Public Act 91-526 unconstitutional and enjoin its operation. On that same day, plaintiff also filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings as to count IV of her complaint.
On May 10, 2000, the circuit court issued a written memorandum opinion and order. The court determined that its decision was controlled by this court's rulings in Kunkel v. Walton, 179 Ill.2d 519, 228 Ill.Dec. 626, 689 N.E.2d 1047 (1997), and Best v. Taylor Machine Works, 179 Ill.2d 367, 228 Ill.Dec. 636, 689 N.E.2d 1057 (1997), wherein this court held that several provisions of the Civil Justice Reform Act of 1995 were unconstitutional. Applying the reasoning of Kunkel and Best to the matter at bar, the circuit court determined that portions of sections 6.17(d) and (e) and all of section 6.17(h) violated the doctrine of separation of powers. The circuit court drew an analogy between certain provisions contained in...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Youngs v. Peacehealth, Corp.
... ... nonparty treating physician only where the communication meets the general prerequisites to application of the attorney-client privilege, 4 the ... ¶ 32 With respect to the QI regime, the defendants cite Burger v. Lutheran General Hospital, 198 Ill.2d 21, 759 N.E.2d 533, 259 Ill.Dec ... Phoenix Children's Hosp"., Inc. v. Grant, 228 Ariz. 235, 239, 265 P.3d 417 (Ct.App.2011). \xC2" ... ...
-
Hayashi v. Ill. Dep't of Fin. & Prof'l Regulation
... ... Lisa Madigan, Attorney General, of Springfield (Carolyn E. Shapiro, Solicitor General, and Nadine J ... Marshall v. Burger King Corp., 222 Ill.2d 422, 429, 305 Ill.Dec. 897, 856 N.E.2d 1048 ... 881, 786 N.E.2d 139 (quoting Burger v. Lutheran General Hospital, 198 Ill.2d 21, 41, 259 Ill.Dec. 753, 759 N.E.2d 533 ... ...
-
People v. Minnis
... ... 21, 2016. 67 N.E.3d 278 Lisa Madigan, Attorney General, of Springfield (Carolyn Shaprio, Solicitor General, and Michael M. Glick ... 561, 787 N.E.2d 747 (2003) ; Burger v. Lutheran General Hospital, 198 Ill.2d 21, 6162, 259 Ill.Dec. 753, 759 ... ...
-
People ex rel. Sherman v. Cryns
... ... James E. Ryan, Attorney General, Springfield (Joel D. Bertocchi, Solicitor General, and Diane M. Potts, ... 81, 776 N.E.2d 218; Burger v. Lutheran General Hospital, 198 Ill.2d 21, 40, 259 Ill.Dec. 753, 759 ... ...
-
Table of Cases
...475, 105 S Ct 2174, 2183 (1985), §§2:315, 7:20, 7:40, 7:43, 7:45, 7:70, 7:71, 7:291, 7:296, 7:361 Burger v. Lutheran General Hospital , 198 Ill2d 21 (2001), §20:42 Burnett v. Stroger, 2009 Ill App Lexis 187 (1st Dist 2009), §12:15 Burnham v. Superior Court , 495 US 604, 110 S Ct 2105(1990),......
-
All Discovery
...of the employees in issue and the hospital would be liable for the acts of its employees. [See Burger v. Lutheran General Hospital , 198 Ill 2d 21, 759 NE2d 533, 259 Ill Dec 753 (2001).] This waiver extends not only to records of post-accident treatment, but also to records of preaccident t......
-
All Discovery
...of the employees in issue and the hospital would be liable for the acts of its employees. [See Burger v. Lutheran General Hospital , 198 Ill 2d 21, 759 NE2d 533, 259 Ill Dec 753 (2001).] This waiver extends not only to records of postaccident treatment, but also to records of preaccident tr......
-
All Discovery
...of the employees in issue and the hospital would be liable for the acts of its employees. [See Burger v. Lutheran General Hospital , 198 Ill 2d 21, 759 NE2d 533, 259 Ill Dec 753 (2001).] This waiver extends not only to records of postaccident treatment, but also to records of preaccident tr......