Lawler v. Univ. of Chi. Med. Ctr., 1–14–3189.

Citation51 N.E.3d 1053,402 Ill.Dec. 301
Decision Date25 March 2016
Docket NumberNo. 1–14–3189.,1–14–3189.
Parties Sheri LAWLER, Executor of the Estate of Jill Prusak, Deceased, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. The UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO MEDICAL CENTER, a corporation, The University of Chicago Hospitals and Health System, The University of Chicago Physicians Group, The University of Chicago Hospitals, University Retina and Macula Associates, P.C., Rama D. Jager, M.D., Advocate Christ Hospital and Medical Center, a corporation, and Advocate Christ Medical Center, a corporation, Defendants–Appellees (Advocate Health and Hospitals Corporation, a corporation, Advocate Health Care Network, a corporation, Advocate Health Centers, Inc., a corporation, Advocate Professional Group, S.C., a corporation, Advocate Christ Hospital Health Partners, a corporation, Advocate South Suburban Hospital, a corporation, Advocate Health Partners, a corporation, Advocate Medical Group, a corporation, Advocate Christ Medical Group, a corporation, Advocate Christ Hospital Physician Partners, and Advocate Health Care, Defendants).
CourtUnited States Appellate Court of Illinois

51 N.E.3d 1053
402 Ill.Dec.
301

Sheri LAWLER, Executor of the Estate of Jill Prusak, Deceased, Plaintiff–Appellant
v.
The UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO MEDICAL CENTER, a corporation, The University of Chicago Hospitals and Health System, The University of Chicago Physicians Group, The University of Chicago Hospitals, University Retina and Macula Associates, P.C., Rama D. Jager, M.D., Advocate Christ Hospital and Medical Center, a corporation, and Advocate Christ Medical Center, a corporation, Defendants–Appellees (Advocate Health and Hospitals Corporation, a corporation, Advocate Health Care Network, a corporation, Advocate Health Centers, Inc., a corporation, Advocate Professional Group, S.C., a corporation, Advocate Christ Hospital Health Partners, a corporation, Advocate South Suburban Hospital, a corporation, Advocate Health Partners, a corporation, Advocate Medical Group, a corporation, Advocate Christ Medical Group, a corporation, Advocate Christ Hospital Physician Partners, and Advocate Health Care, Defendants).

No. 1–14–3189.

Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Sixth Division.

March 25, 2016.


51 N.E.3d 1054

Clifford Law Offices, P.C., Chicago (Keith Hebeisen, Sarah F. King, and Robert P. Sheridan, of counsel), for appellant.

Pretzel & Stouffer, Chtrd., Chicago (Robert Marc Chemers, Daniel B. Mills, and Scott L. Howie, of counsel), for appellees University Retina & Macula Associates, P.C., and Rama D. Jager.

Cassiday Schade LLP, Chicago (Rudolph G. Schade, Jr., Julie Teuscher, and Matthew A. Eliaser, of counsel), for appellees Advocate Christ Hospital and Medical Center and Advocate Christ Medical Center.

Stamos & Trucco LLP, Chicago (Michael T. Trucco, Julie N. Howie, and Megan T. Hughes, of counsel), for other appellees.

OPINION

Justice DELORT delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

402 Ill.Dec. 302

¶ 1 This appeal concerns an issue of first impression in Illinois regarding the interplay of three statutes. We must determine whether the medical malpractice statute of repose (735 ILCS 5/13–212(a) (West 2010)) bars the application of the relation back doctrine (735 ILCS 5/2–616(b) (West 2010)) for purposes of adding a claim to an existing case under the Illinois Wrongful Death Act (740 ILCS 180/0.01 et seq. (West 2010)). We hold that the relation back doctrine applies so the wrongful death action is not barred.

¶ 2 BACKGROUND

¶ 3 On August 4, 2011, Jill Prusak, the decedent in this case, filed a medical malpractice cause of action within both the two-year statute of limitations and four-year statute of repose under section 13–212(a). Prusak filed a two-count complaint against defendants, The University of Chicago Medical Center, The University of Chicago Hospitals and Health System, The University of Chicago Physicians Group, The University of Chicago Hospitals (collectively, the University of Chicago defendants), University Retina and Macula Associates, P.C., Dr. Rama Jager, Advocate Christ Hospital and Medical Center, and Advocate Christ Medical Center (collectively, the Christ Hospital defendants), and other medical providers who have since been dismissed from the case.1 Prusak

402 Ill.Dec. 303
51 N.E.3d 1055

alleged that Dr. Jager misdiagnosed her macular pathology and that this misdiagnosis led to defendants' failure to recognize central nervous system lymphoma. Count I alleged negligence against the University of Chicago defendants and asserted that Dr. Jager was an agent or apparent agent of the University of Chicago defendants. Count II made the same allegations with respect to the Advocate defendants and the Christ Hospital defendants. In both counts, Prusak specifically alleged:

“From November 5, 2007 through July of 2009, and at all times mentioned herein, Defendant, JAGER, was negligent in the following ways:

a) Failed to order appropriate diagnostic testing on November 5th, 2007 for a patient with bilateral metamorphopsia and visual acuity that could not be corrected to normal levels in either eyes;

b) Failed to diagnose macular pathology[;] and

c) Failed to perform appropriate medical evaluation of a 47 year old patient with macular pathology and no known systemic illness.”

Prusak also alleged that she “neither knew or should have known her injury and that it may have been wrongfully caused before August 7, 2009, when a brain biopsy was performed and this case is brought within two (2) years of the date of said discovery.”

¶ 4 Defendants each filed answers to Prusak's complaint by April 20, 2012. A period of discovery followed during which Prusak answered defendants' interrogatories on August 16, 2012. In response to the question asking Prusak to describe each and every personal injury, condition, and symptom of ill-being sustained as a result of the occurrence alleged in her complaint, she described reoccurrences of both lymphoma (second brain tumor ) and ocular lymphoma.

¶ 5 Prusak died on November 24, 2013, after the expiration of the four-year statute of repose. On March 11, 2014, the trial court granted Prusak's daughter, Sheri Lawler, leave to file an amended complaint, substituting herself as party plaintiff and as the executor of Prusak's estate.

¶ 6 Lawler filed a four-count first amended complaint on April 11, 2014. Two of the counts alleged claims under the Illinois survival statute (755 ILCS 5/27–6 (West 2010) ) for injuries suffered by Prusak prior to her death. The other two counts sounded in wrongful death. The amended complaint identified Prusak's survivors as Lawler; Charles Allen Boswell, Jr., Prusak's brother; and Charles Allen Boswell, Sr., her father. All four counts alleged the same acts of negligence and operative facts as the original complaint.

¶ 7 On May 9, 2014, the University of Chicago defendants filed an answer to count II, the survival claim, and moved to dismiss count I, the wrongful death claim, pursuant to section 2–619(a)(5) of the Code (735 ILCS 5/2–619(a)(5) (West 2010)). The University of Chicago defendants argued that the medical malpractice statute of repose (section 13–212(a) ) barred Lawler's wrongful death claim. Defendants Dr. Jager and University Retina and Macula

402 Ill.Dec. 304
51 N.E.3d 1056

Associates filed a similar motion to dismiss on May 29, 2014. The remaining defendants also argued that Prusak's brother and father were not proper beneficiaries under the Wrongful Death Act and moved to strike the allegations concerning the pecuniary loss to those individuals.2

¶ 8 On September 17, 2014, after briefing and argument, the trial court entered a written order granting defendants' motions to dismiss count I (wrongful death) of the amended complaint with prejudice. The court found that the wrongful death claims were only valid “if the deceased was not time-barred to bring the action at the time of his or her death.” The court stated that because the wrongful death claims were added in the amended complaint in April 2014, more than four years after the date of the last medical treatment in July 2009, the claims were barred by the statute of repose, “unless the Court finds that Plaintiff's wrongful death claim relates back to her original medical negligence claim.” The court held that the relation back doctrine did not apply to this case “because there is no precedent, as shown from the absence of medical malpractice cases where courts allowed plaintiffs to file a claim after the four-year period expired.” The trial court noted our supreme court's decision in Hayes v. Mercy Hospital & Medical Center, 136 Ill.2d 450, 145 Ill.Dec. 894, 557 N.E.2d 873 (1990), which discussed the General Assembly's efforts to curb medical insurance premiums from increasing by artificially limiting the potential liability that physicians and medical personnel might face for the care they provided to patients. The court therefore concluded that Lawler's wrongful death claim was a new action barred by the four-year statute of repose. The order was made final and appealable under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 304(a) (Ill.S.Ct. R. 304(a) (eff. Feb. 26, 2010)).

¶ 9 The trial court entered subsequent nunc pro tunc orders on October 2, 2014 and October 17, 2014 to add count III of the amended complaint to the original dismissal order and clarify that the dismissal order also applied to the Christ Hospital defendants, University Retina and Macula Associates, and Dr. Jager. The nunc pro tunc orders also included Rule 304(a) language. This appeal followed.

¶ 10 ANALYSIS

¶ 11 Lawler argues that under a correct interpretation of the relevant statutes, a wrongful death action can relate back to the original complaint even after more than four years have elapsed since the last date of the alleged negligent medical treatment. She notes that Prusak's original complaint was timely filed and that the alleged negligent transactions in the original and amended complaint are completely identical. Lawler argues that the relation back doctrine should apply because the original claims supplied defendants with the information necessary to prepare their defense to the amended claims.

...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Lawler v. Univ. of Chi. Med. Ctr.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Illinois
    • November 30, 2017
    ...circuit court of Cook County granted defendants' motions. However, on appeal, the appellate court reversed. 2016 IL App (1st) 143189, 402 Ill.Dec. 301, 51 N.E.3d 1053. For the following reasons, we affirm the judgment of the appellate court.¶ 2 BACKGROUND¶ 3 This case is before us on the pl......
  • Gables & Villas at River Oaks Homeowners Ass'n v. Castlewood Builders, LLC
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Utah
    • June 29, 2018
    ...... merits instead of on "technical rules of pleading." Lawler v. Univ. of Chi. Med. Ctr. , 402 Ill.Dec. 301, 51 N.E.3d ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT