Kaufmann v. Jersey Community Hosp.
| Decision Date | 08 December 2009 |
| Docket Number | No. 4-080909.,4-080909. |
| Citation | 919 N.E.2d 1077 |
| Parties | Kristen KAUFMANN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JERSEY COMMUNITY HOSPITAL, a Municipal Corporation, Defendant-Appellee, and Roger A. Schroeder, M.D., Defendant. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
In July 2008, the trial court dismissed counts IV through X of plaintiff Kristen Kaufmann's first amended complaint because plaintiff failed to comply with the applicable one-year statute of limitations under section 8-101(a) of the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act (Tort Immunity Act) (745 ILCS 10/8-101(a) (West 2006)). Those seven counts were directed at defendant Jersey Community Hospital (Jersey Hospital). Plaintiff filed motions to reconsider in August 2008 and November 2008, which the court denied. In November 2008, the court entered an order pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 304(a) (210 Ill.2d R. 304(a)), finding no just reason to delay the appeal of its decision to dismiss those seven counts. Plaintiff appeals, arguing the two-year statute of limitations under section 8-101(b) of the Tort Immunity Act (745 ILCS 10/8-101(b) (West 2006)) should have applied. We affirm.
In December 2007, plaintiff filed a two-count complaint against Roger A. Schroeder, M.D., and Jersey Hospital. In June 2008, plaintiff filed her first amended complaint in this case. Plaintiff alleged the following. Schroeder had been her obstetrician-gynecologist since 2004. In January 2006, plaintiff was hospitalized at Jersey Hospital with a urinary tract infection. While there, Schroeder sedated her during an unnecessary exam that did not require sedation. While plaintiff was sedated, Schroeder committed a "deviant act of sex" upon plaintiff. While the information was not contained in the record, plaintiff's counsel stated during oral argument that plaintiff found Schroeder licking her breast when she awoke from her sedation. Defense counsel did not object to this information being disclosed.
Based on information and belief, plaintiff alleged no other physicians, nurses, or other hospital agents or employees were present when this occurred. In addition, based on information and belief, plaintiff alleged Schroeder had committed "devious acts of sex" upon former patients and that Jersey Hospital had knowledge of this.
Plaintiff alleged the Illinois State Police (ISP), which was investigating Schroeder's alleged criminal activity, requested her not to file a civil suit against Schroeder and Jersey Hospital until certain evidence had been collected. Plaintiff alleged she complied with ISP's request and waited to consult a lawyer or file a civil suit against Schroeder or Jersey Hospital. She filed her civil suit in December 2007.
Counts I through III of the amended complaint were directed at Schroeder, alleging, respectively, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligence. Counts IV through X were directed at Jersey Hospital, alleging, respectively, negligent hiring, negligent retention, negligent supervision, negligence (willful and wanton), intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and vicarious liability. Plaintiff did not allege any specific physical injuries. In the count alleging battery, plaintiff alleges Schroeder's devious acts of sex were "harmful and offensive contact." However, she does not allege Schroeder's devious act of sex caused any actual physical injury. She did allege she suffered severe and extreme emotional distress.
In July 2008, the hospital filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff's first amended complaint pursuant to sections 2-615 and 2-619 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code) (735 ILCS 5/2-615, 2-619 (West 2006)). That same month, the trial court dismissed counts IV through X. Plaintiff filed two motions to reconsider, which were both denied.
This appeal followed.
On appeal, plaintiff argues the trial court erred in failing to find the applicable statute of limitations was two years pursuant to section 8-101(b) of the Tort Immunity Act (745 ILCS 10/8-101(b) (West 2006)) instead of one year pursuant to section 8-101(a) of the Tort Immunity Act (745 ILCS 10/8-101(a) (West 2006)) because plaintiff's injuries arose out of patient care. In the alternative, plaintiff argues if this court finds the one-year period to be applicable, the statute of limitations should have been equitably tolled because she was requested by ISP not to file a civil claim until it had finished gathering evidence.
Section 8-101 of the Tort Immunity Act (745 ILCS 10/8-101 (West 2006)) states:
Our decision in this case rests on whether the General Assembly meant for injuries arising from a deviant sex act committed by a doctor at a hospital to be injuries "arising out of patient care" pursuant to section 8-101(b) of the Tort Immunity Act (745 ILCS 10/8-101(b) (West 2006)). The legislature's intent is best determined from the plain language of the statute. Orlak v. Loyola University Health System, 228 Ill.2d 1, 8, 319 Ill.Dec. 319, 885 N.E.2d 999, 1004 (2007). When a term is not defined by a statute, it is to be given its plain and ordinary meaning. Orlak, 228 Ill.2d at 8, 319 Ill.Dec. 319, 885 N.E.2d at 1004. Neither section 8-101 of the Tort Immunity Act (745 ILCS 10/8-101 (West 2006)) nor section 13-212 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code) (735 ILCS 5/13-212 (West 2006)), which also contains the same language, defines the phrase "arising out of patient care." In determining the plain meaning of a statute's terms, we consider the statute in its entirety, keeping in mind the subject it addresses, and the apparent intent of the legislature in enacting the statute. Orlak, 228 Ill.2d at 8, 319 Ill.Dec. 319, 885 N.E.2d at 1004.
According to plaintiff, her injuries arose from the patient care she received at Jersey Hospital. The parties did not cite, and this court did not find, any cases specifically dealing with section 8-101(b) of the Tort Immunity Act (745 ILCS 10/8-101(b) (West 2006)). As a result, this is a case of first impression with regard to section 8-101(b).
Plaintiff argues we should be guided by cases interpreting section 13-212 of the Code (735 ILCS 5/13-212 (West 2006)), which concerns the statute of limitations for claims involving physicians or hospitals and includes language similar to the language of section 8-101(b) of the Tort Immunity Act (745 ILCS 10/8-101(b) (West 2006)). Section 13-212 of the Code states in part:
"(a) Except as provided in [s]ection 13-215 of this Act, no action for damages for injury or death against any physician, dentist, registered nurse[,] or hospital duly licensed under the laws of this State, whether based upon tort, or breach of contract, or otherwise, arising out of patient care shall be brought more than 2 years after the date on which the claimant knew, or through the use of reasonable diligence should have known, or received notice in writing of the existence of the injury or death for which damages are sought in the action, whichever of such dates occurs first, but in no event shall such action be brought more than 4 years after the date on which occurred the act or omission or occurrence alleged in such action to have been the cause of such injury or death.
(b) Except as provided in [s]ection 13-215 of this Act, no action for damages for injury or death against any physician, dentist, registered nurse[,] or hospital duly licensed under the laws of this State, whether based upon tort, or breach of contract, or otherwise, arising out of patient care shall be brought more than 8 years after the date on which occurred the act or omission or occurrence alleged in such action to have been the cause of such injury or death where the person entitled to bring the action was, at the time the cause of action accrued, under the age of 18 years * * *." (Emphases added.) 735 ILCS 5/13-212(a), (b) (West 2006).
In 2007, the Supreme Court of Illinois issued two opinions interpreting the "arising out of patient care" language found in section 13-212 of the Code (735 ILCS 5/13-212 (West 2006)). See Brucker v. Mercola, 227 Ill.2d 502, 319 Ill.Dec. 543, 886 N.E.2d 306 (2007); Orlak, 228 Ill.2d 1, 319 Ill.Dec. 319, 885 N.E.2d 999. We conclude the supreme court would apply the language of section 8-101(b) of the Tort Immunity Act (745 ILCS 10/8-101(b) (West 2006)) in the same manner it applied the language of section 13-212 of the Code (735 ILCS 5/13-212 (West 2006)) in Brucker and Orlak, considering the statutes contain nearly identical language. As a result, we use the same analysis in this case as the supreme court used in Brucker and Orlak to determine whether section 8-101(a) or (b) of the Tort Immunity Act (745 ILCS 10/8-101(a), (b) (West 2006)) is applicable to plaintiff's claim.
In Brucker, Anna Brucker went to Dr. Mercola's office for an allergy consultation. In deposition...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bhalerao v. Ill. Dep't of Fin. & Prof'l Regulations
...providers take to ensure they will never be accused of it.Kaufmann v. Jersey Community Hosp., 396 Ill.App.3d 729, 336 Ill.Dec. 152, 919 N.E.2d 1077, 1094–95 (2009). In sum, although certain factors suggest that the sanction at issue is a “criminal” one, in light of the circumstances as a wh......
-
Kaufmann v. Schroeder
...the Tort Immunity Act applies. The appellate court affirmed the circuit court's dismissal order. 396 Ill.App.3d 729, 336 Ill.Dec. 152, 919 N.E.2d 1077. For reasons that follow, we affirm the judgment of the appellate court.BACKGROUND On December 31, 2007, Kaufmann filed an initial two-count......
-
Bhalerao v. Illinois Dep't of Fin. & Prof'l Regulations
... ... part of his sentence, such as Page 2 imprisonment, probation, or community" service, nor was Dr. Bhalerao required to register as a sex offender. \xC2" ... Kaufmann v. Jersey Community Hosp., 919 N.E.2d 1077, 1094-95 (Ill. App. Ct. 4th ... ...
-
Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. Plunkett
...applies even when the defendant is faultless.’ ” Kaufmann v. Jersey Community Hospital, 396 Ill.App.3d 729, 743, 336 Ill.Dec. 152, 919 N.E.2d 1077 (2009) (quoting Griffin, 369 Ill.App.3d at 416, 311 Ill.Dec. 21, 867 N.E.2d 1007 ).¶ 33 While equitable tolling is recognized in Illinois, it is......