Niven v. Siqueira, 61137

CourtSupreme Court of Illinois
Citation487 N.E.2d 937,94 Ill.Dec. 60,109 Ill.2d 357
Docket NumberNo. 61137,61137
Parties, 94 Ill.Dec. 60 Todd NIVEN et al., Appellees, v. Edir B. SIQUEIRA et al., Appellants.
Decision Date21 November 1985

Page 937

487 N.E.2d 937
109 Ill.2d 357, 94 Ill.Dec. 60
Todd NIVEN et al., Appellees,
v.
Edir B. SIQUEIRA et al., Appellants.
No. 61137.
Supreme Court of Illinois.
Nov. 21, 1985.

Page 938

[109 Ill.2d 359] [94 Ill.Dec. 61] Schuyler, Roche & Zwirner, Chicago, for John E. Affeldt, M.D., President, Joint

Page 939

[94 Ill.Dec. 62] Com'n on Accreditation of Hospitals, respondent to subpoena-contemnor-appellant; Daniel M. Schuyler, Bruce K. Roberts, of counsel.

Fredric J. Entin, Miles J. Zaremski, Nancy Kotler, Lurie Sklar & Simon, Ltd., Chicago, for Northwestern Memorial Hosp.

Joseph T. McGuire, Perz, McGuire, Condon & Ridge, Kevin W. Dillon, Chicago, for appellees.

Mark D. Deaton, Daniel J. Mulvanny, Illinois Hosp. Ass'n, Naperville, for amicus curiae, Illinois Hosp. Ass'n.

MORAN, Justice:

In late 1979 plaintiffs, Todd and Thomas Niven, filed a medical malpractice action in the circuit court of Cook County against Dr. Edir B. Siqueira, Northwestern Memorial Hospital (Northwestern), and several persons associated[109 Ill.2d 360] with Northwestern's administration. On plaintiffs' application the circuit court issued a subpoena asking for certain documents in the possession of a third party, the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals (the Joint Commission), relating to Northwestern's accreditation. Both Northwestern and the Joint Commission moved to quash the subpoena, arguing that the subpoenaed documents were confidential and not discoverable pursuant to section 8--2101 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Ill.Rev.Stat.1983, ch. 110, par. 8-2101). (Sections 8-2101 through 8-2105 of the Code of Civil Procedure will hereinafter be referred to as the Act.) The circuit court denied the motions to quash but certified for interlocutory appeal the question of the Act's applicability to the documents in question. The Joint Commission and Northwestern filed a petition for leave to appeal to the appellate court pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 308 (87 Ill.2d R. 308) and also petitioned directly to this court pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 302(b) (94 Ill.2d R. 302(b)). Both petitions were denied.

Plaintiffs then moved to compel production of the documents. Northwestern was allowed to intervene in opposition to the motion to compel. The president of the Joint Commission, Dr. John E. Affeldt, informed the court that he would not comply with the subpoena, and the court thereupon found him in civil contempt. Dr. Affeldt was fined $10.

Dr. Affeldt, the Joint Commission, and Northwestern appealed the contempt order to the appellate court, and also petitioned directly to this court under Rule 302(b) (87 Ill.2d R. 302(b)). We granted direct appeal. The Illinois Hospital Association was allowed to participate as amicus curiae, urging that the documents in question be held to be confidential and nondiscoverable.

Appellants raise a single issue for review: Does the Act protect from discovery surveys, accreditation evaluations,[109 Ill.2d 361] and other records in the hands of the Joint Commission? Plaintiffs, on cross-appeal, raise three additional issues: (1) Does the current, amended version of the Act control this appeal, or is this appeal instead governed by the Act as it existed at the time the lawsuit was initiated? (2) Have appellants presented a record sufficient to warrant quashing the subpoena? and (3) If the Act does exempt the documents in question from discovery, does this result render the Act unconstitutional as a violation of the separation of powers?

Defendant Edir B. Siqueira, M.D., performed several operations upon the brain of plaintiff Todd Niven between 1975 and 1977, utilizing a procedure known as stereotactic brain surgery. Plaintiffs claim that Todd Niven was injured as a result of Dr. Siqueira's negligent performance of those operations. Plaintiffs also allege that defendant Northwestern and the named administrators were negligent in allowing Dr. Siqueira clinical privileges to perform stereotactic surgery. Amongst plaintiffs' specific allegations they claim that Northwestern failed to adequately review Dr. Siqueira's clinical privileges, alleging as a standard of care the Joint Commission's accreditation standards. (A cause of action against hospitals for negligent supervision of care was approved by this court in Darling v. Charleston Community

Page 940

[94 Ill.Dec. 63] Memorial Hospital (1965),...

To continue reading

Request your trial
128 cases
  • City of Charleston v. Joint Comm'n
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. Southern District of West Virginia
    • July 20, 2020
    ......¶ 14; see also Niven v. Siqueira , 109 Ill.2d 357, 94 Ill.Dec. 60, 487 N.E.2d 937, 941 (1985) (summarizing TJC's basis ......
  • Best v. Taylor Mach. Works, s. 81890-81893
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Illinois
    • December 18, 1997
    ......St. Francis Hospital, 112 Ill.2d 273, 281, 97 Ill.Dec. 449, 492 N.E.2d 1322 (1986); Niven v. Siqueira, 109 Ill.2d 357, 368, 94 Ill.Dec. 60, 487 N.E.2d 937 (1985)), "we have not hesitated to ......
  • Obermeier v. Nw. Mem'l Hosp., 1-17-0553
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • June 28, 2019
    ...and programs used to improve hospital conditions and patient care or to reduce the rates of death and disease." Niven v. Siqueira , 109 Ill. 2d 357, 366, 94 Ill.Dec. 60, 487 N.E.2d 937 (1985). Our supreme court has explained that to promote these goals "the legislature provided that any mat......
  • White v. Sunrise Healthcare Corp., 2-97-0481
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • March 31, 1998
    ...retroactive legislation where it is so severe as to work a deprivation of the underlying substantive right (see Niven v. Siqueira, 109 Ill.2d 357, 364-65, 94 Ill.Dec. 60, 487 N.E.2d 937 (1985); Hogan v. Bleeker, 29 Ill.2d 181, 187, 193 N.E.2d 844 (1963)), no authority holds that the elimina......
  • 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