Lawler v. Univ. of Chi. Med. Ctr., Docket No. 120745

CourtSupreme Court of Illinois
Citation104 N.E.3d 1090,2017 IL 120745
Docket NumberDocket No. 120745
Parties Sheri LAWLER, Appellee, v. UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO MEDICAL CENTER, et al., Appellants.
Decision Date30 November 2017

2017 IL 120745
104 N.E.3d 1090

Sheri LAWLER, Appellee,
v.
UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO MEDICAL CENTER, et al., Appellants.

Docket No. 120745

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Opinion filed November 30, 2017.


104 N.E.3d 1091

Michael T. Trucco, Julie N. Howie, and Megan T. Hughes, of Stamos & Trucco LLP, of Chicago, for appellants University of Chicago Medical Center et al.

Julie A. Teuscher, Rudolf G. Schade, Jr., and Matthew A. Eliaser, of Cassiday Schade LLP, of Chicago, for appellant Advocate Christ Medical Center.

Robert Marc Chemers, Daniel B. Mills, and Scott L. Howie, of Pretzel & Stouffer, Chtrd., of Chicago, for other appellants.

Keith A. Hebeisen, Bradley M. Cosgrove, Sarah F. King, and Robert P. Sheridan, of Clifford Law Offices, P.C., of Chicago, for appellee.

Hugh C. Griffin, of Hall Prangle & Schoonveld, LLC, of Chicago, and Mark Deaton, of Naperville, for amici curiae Illinois Health and Hospital Association et al.

John K. Kennedy, of James D. Montgomery & Associates, Ltd., of Chicago, for amicus curiae Illinois Trial Lawyers Association.

JUSTICE FREEMAN delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

104 N.E.3d 1092

¶ 1 In this case, we consider whether the relation back statute ( 735 ILCS 5/2–616(b) (West 2010)) applies to a wrongful death claim when the death occurs more than four years after the alleged act of negligence. Plaintiff, Sheri Lawler, filed an amended complaint alleging a wrongful death claim against defendants, numerous medical providers. Defendants sought to dismiss the claim as time-barred by the four-year medical malpractice statute of repose. 735 ILCS 5/13–212(a) (West 2010). The 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 pleadings. Jill Prusak, decedent, filed a two-count complaint on August 4, 2011, alleging medical malpractice against Dr. Rama D. Jager, University Retina and Macula Associates, P.C. (University Retina), and numerous University of Chicago and Advocate medical providers.1 The complaint alleged that from November 5, 2007, through July 2009, Prusak received medical care and treatment from Dr. Jager for "flashes, spots and floaters in her eyes." On August 7, 2009, she underwent a brain biopsy that showed she had central nervous system lymphoma. She alleged that Dr. Jager was negligent in the following ways:

"a) [f]ailed 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 [sic ];

b) [f]ailed to diagnose macular pathology, and

c) [f]ailed to perform appropriate medical evaluation of a 47 year old patient with macular pathology and no known systemic illness."
104 N.E.3d 1093

Count I was directed against numerous University of Chicago medical providers and asserted that Dr. Jager was their agent, employee, or apparent agent. Count II was directed against numerous Advocate medical providers and asserted that Dr. Jager was their agent, employee, or apparent agent.2

¶ 4 Prusak died on November 24, 2013. The circuit 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. On April 11, 2014, Lawler filed a four-count first amended complaint against all defendants. Counts I and II were directed against the University of Chicago defendants and contained the same allegations of negligence as the original complaint. Count I was brought pursuant to the Wrongful Death Act ( 740 ILCS 180/2 (West 2010) ), and count II was brought pursuant to the Survival Act ( 755 ILCS 5/27–6 (West 2010) ). Counts III and IV were directed against the Advocate defendants and also contained the same allegations of negligence as the original complaint. Count III was brought pursuant to the Wrongful Death Act, and count IV was brought pursuant to the Survival Act.3

¶ 5 The University of Chicago defendants filed a motion to dismiss the wrongful death claim based on section 2–619(a)(5) of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code) ( 735 ILCS 5/2–619(a)(5) (West 2010)). The motion alleged that plaintiff's wrongful death claim was barred by the four-year medical malpractice statute of repose because decedent had died more than four years after the last alleged act of negligent medical treatment. Dr. Jager, University Retina, and the Advocate defendants also filed motions to dismiss on the same basis.

¶ 6 Plaintiff responded to defendants' motions and argued that the wrongful death claim was timely and was not barred by the statute of repose because it related back to the original complaint pursuant to section 2–616(b) of the Code ( 735 ILCS 5/2–616(b) (West 2010)).

¶ 7 The circuit court agreed with defendants and dismissed the wrongful death claim. The court reasoned that the medical malpractice statute of repose was an "absolute bar" to a wrongful death claim brought more than four years after the last alleged act of negligence and that the relation back doctrine did not apply.

¶ 8 The appellate court reversed, concluding that the relation back doctrine did apply and that plaintiff's wrongful death claim was not barred by the statute of repose. 2016 IL App (1st) 143189, ¶ 52, 402 Ill.Dec. 301, 51 N.E.3d 1053. The court noted that plaintiff's original complaint was timely filed and that the wrongful death claim related back to the original complaint and was therefore timely. It specifically relied on the language in the relation back statute that " ‘[t]he cause of action * * * in any amended pleading shall not be barred by lapse of time under any statute or contract prescribing or limiting the time within which an action may be brought or right asserted.’ " (Emphasis in original.) Id. ¶ 56 (quoting 735 ILCS 5/2–616(b) (West 2010)).

¶ 9 ANALYSIS

¶ 10 Defendants contend on appeal that the relation back statute does not

104 N.E.3d 1094

apply in cases such as here, where a death occurs more than four years after the alleged negligence. Alternatively, defendants argue that even if the relation back statute does apply, the medical malpractice statute of repose should control and preclude plaintiff's wrongful death claim.

¶ 11 Defendants' motions to dismiss the wrongful death claim were brought pursuant to section 2–619(a)(5) of the Code. When deciding a motion based on section 2–619 of the Code, a court accepts all well-pleaded facts in the complaint as true and will grant the motion when it appears that no set of facts can be proved that would allow the plaintiff to recover. Moon v. Rhode , 2016 IL 119572, ¶ 15, 409 Ill.Dec. 8, 67 N.E.3d 220. Also, section 2–619(a)(5) of the Code provides that a defendant is entitled to a dismissal if the "action was not commenced within the time limited by law." 735 ILCS 5/2–619(a)(5) (West 2016). We review an order granting a section 2–619 motion to dismiss de novo . Moon , 2016 IL 119572, ¶ 15, 409 Ill.Dec. 8, 67 N.E.3d 220.

¶ 12 This court's primary goal in construing a statute is to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the legislature. DeLuna v. Burciaga , 223 Ill. 2d 49, 59, 306 Ill.Dec. 136, 857 N.E.2d 229 (2006). The most reliable indication of legislative intent is the plain language of the statute, which must be given its plain and ordinary meaning. Evanston Insurance Co. v. Riseborough , 2014 IL 114271, ¶ 15, 378 Ill.Dec. 778, 5 N.E.3d 158. In determining the plain language of a statute, we consider the statute in its entirety, keeping in mind the subject it addresses and the intent of the legislature in enacting the statute. Orlak v. Loyola University Health System , 228 Ill. 2d 1, 8, 319 Ill.Dec. 319, 885 N.E.2d 999 (2007). When statutory language is clear and unambiguous, a court may not depart from the plain language and meaning of the statute by reading into it exceptions, limitations, or conditions that the legislature did not express. Evanston Insurance Co. , 2014 IL 114271, ¶ 15, 378 Ill.Dec. 778, 5 N.E.3d 158. Further, we must presume that the legislature did not intend to create absurd, inconvenient, or unjust results. Solon v. Midwest Medical Records Ass'n, Inc. , 236 Ill. 2d 433, 441, 338 Ill.Dec. 907, 925 N.E.2d 1113 (2010). The interpretation of a statute and the applicability of a statute of repose to a cause of action are questions of law subject to de novo review. Evanston Insurance Co. , 2014 IL 114271, ¶ 13, 378 Ill.Dec. 778, 5 N.E.3d 158.

¶ 13 To determine whether the relation back statute applies here, we consider the three statutes at issue: the Wrongful Death Act, the medical malpractice statute of repose, and the relation back statute.

¶ 14 Wrongful Death Act

¶ 15 A wrongful death action allows the decedent's next of kin to recover damages for their own loss based on the wrongful actions of another. Wyness v. Armstrong World Industries, Inc. , 131 Ill. 2d 403, 411, 137 Ill.Dec. 623, 546 N.E.2d 568 (1989). The cause of action accrues when the death occurs. Id. at 412, 137 Ill.Dec....

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • Cassidy v. China Vitamins, LLC
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Illinois
    • 18 Octubre 2018
    ...keeping in mind its intended subject matter. Lawler v. University of Chicago Medical Center , 2017 IL 120745, ¶ 12, 423 Ill.Dec. 1, 104 N.E.3d 1090. Here, that subject matter is strict product liability.¶ 18 China Vitamins asserts that the proper focus of subsection (b)(4) is the manufactur......
  • W. Ill. Univ. v. Ill. Educ. Labor Relations Bd.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Illinois
    • 21 Octubre 2021
    ...conditions that the legislature did not express. Lawler v. University of Chicago Medical Center , 2017 IL 120745, ¶ 12, 423 Ill.Dec. 1, 104 N.E.3d 1090. Moreover, the court may not rewrite statutory language so that it conforms to the judiciary's view of orderliness and public policy. Praze......
  • Razavi v. Sch. of the Art Inst. of Chi.
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 20 Noviembre 2018
    ...a section 2-619 motion to dismiss de novo . Lawler v. University of Chicago Medical Center , 2017 IL 120745, ¶ 11, 423 Ill.Dec. 1, 104 N.E.3d 1090. ¶ 19 Plaintiff maintains that absolute privilege does not apply and therefore his amended complaint asserting defamation should be allowed to p......
  • People v. Patterson
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 14 Diciembre 2018
    ...resort to extrinsic aids for constructions. Lawler v. University of Chicago Medical Center , 2017 IL 120745, ¶ 40, 423 Ill.Dec. 1, 104 N.E.3d 1090. This court reviews the constitutionality of a statute de novo . Einoder , 209 Ill. 2d at 450, 283 Ill.Dec. 551, 808 N.E.2d 517.¶ 28 We do not a......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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