Reda v. Advocate Health Care
Decision Date | 22 February 2002 |
Docket Number | No. 90487.,90487. |
Parties | Emilio REDA et al. (Susan Capra, Contemnor-Appellant), v. ADVOCATE HEALTH CARE et al., Appellees. |
Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
Robert P. Sheridan, Chicago, for appellant.
Cassiday, Schade & Gloor, of Chicago (James W. Kopriva, Donald F. Ivansek and Morgan M. Strand, of counsel), for appellees Lutheran General Hospital and T. Cappello.
Iwan, Cray, Huber, Horstman & VanAusdal, L.L.C., of Chicago (James K. Horstman and Rodney E. VanAusdal, of counsel), for appellee Melvin P. Katz.
Hegarty & Heath, of Chicago (Timothy W. Heath, of counsel), for amicus curiae Illinois Trial Lawyers Association.
During discovery in a medical malpractice action, the circuit court of Cook County twice ordered plaintiffs, Emilio and Mary Reda, to disclose Emilio's psychiatric records to defendants, Advocate Health Care, formerly doing business as Lutheran General Hospital, Inc. (hospital); Dr. Theresa Cappello; and Dr. Melvin Katz. Plaintiffs' attorney, Susan Capra, refused, invoking the mental health therapist-patient privilege under the Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities Confidentiality Act (Act) (740 ILCS 110/1 et seq. (West 2000)). The court held Capra in civil contempt for refusing to comply with its discovery orders.
The appellate court, inter alia, upheld the disclosure of Emilio's psychiatric records. 316 Ill.App.3d 1115, 250 Ill.Dec. 189, 738 N.E.2d 153. We allowed Capra's petition for leave to appeal. 177 Ill.2d R. 315(a). We now reverse the appellate and circuit courts, and remand the cause to the circuit court for further proceedings.
Plaintiffs' first amended complaint alleged as follows. On June 6, 1994, Emilio was admitted to the hospital, coming under its care and the care of Drs. Cappello and Katz, for the treatment of arthritis in his right knee. That day, Dr. Katz performed a total right knee arthroplasty, i.e., knee replacement. As a result of the surgery, Emilio developed an acute thrombosis of the popliteal artery in his right leg. Defendants failed in several respects to timely diagnose and treat this worsening condition. As a proximate result of defendants' negligence, Emilio "sustained injuries of a personal and pecuniary nature." Emilio sought recovery for these injuries (count I), and as a result of Emilio's injuries, Mary sought recovery for the loss of Emilio's society, companionship, and affection (count II). In their answers, defendants denied that plaintiffs were injured as alleged.
In subsequent interrogatories, Dr. Katz and the hospital each asked Emilio to specify his claimed injuries. Emilio answered each interrogatory as follows:
We note that Emilio's hospital records were not included in the record on appeal.
Plaintiffs filed their current complaint on December 17, 1996. During pretrial discovery, defendants requested from Dr. Samuel DeLisi Emilio's treatment records. Dr. DeLisi refused, explaining that Emilio had not authorized their release. Plaintiffs objected to defendants' discovery request, invoking the mental-health therapist-patient privilege. On November 14, 1997, defendants Cappello and the hospital moved to compel Emilio to authorize the release of his psychiatric records from Dr. DeLisi.
On January 19, 1998, Emilio and Mary each testified at a discovery deposition. During Emilio's deposition, attorneys from both sides agreed that questions regarding Dr. DeLisi's psychiatric treatment of Emilio would be deferred pending resolution of the motion to compel. The record contains the following pertinent excerpts from Emilio's deposition:
During defense counsel's questioning of Emilio regarding his headaches, the following colloquy occurred:
Q. Do you take anything for the headaches now?
A. I don't take them for the headaches. I take them more for the heart and—I will not take medicine for headaches, sir."
During Mary's deposition, defense counsel questioned her regarding, inter alia, Emilio's injuries. Answering their questions, Mary testified regarding Emilio's comprehension following the surgery. She testified that Emilio was not able to perform many tasks, e.g., operating a shower faucet and cutting his food with a knife. Mary also testified that Emilio was "very emotional" and "very frustrated." Mary also referred to Emilio's lack of affection subsequent to the surgery. She testified:
On February 20, 1998, the circuit court denied, without prejudice, the motion to compel production of Emilio's psychiatric records. The court did not have before it plaintiffs' deposition testimony. On April 7, 1998, based on plaintiffs' depositions, Dr. Cappello and the hospital sought rehearing on their motion to compel. On August 20, 1998, the circuit ordered plaintiffs to submit Emilio's psychiatric records to the court for an in camera inspection. On November 5, 1998, the court ordered plaintiffs to disclose Emilio's psychiatric records to defendants. On March 17, 1999, the court denied plaintiffs' motion to vacate the disclosure order and again ordered plaintiffs to disclose Emilio's psychiatric records to defendants.
On April 6, 1999, the circuit court held plaintiffs' attorney, Susan Capra, in civil contempt for refusing to comply with the court's discovery orders. The court fined Capra $100 plus $10 per day until Capra disclosed Emilio's psychiatric records to defendants.
The appellate court, with one justice dissenting, upheld the disclosure of Emilio's psychiatric records. The court concluded that, under the Act, Emilio had placed his mental condition at issue in this litigation. 316 Ill.App.3d at 1118-19, 250 Ill.Dec. 189, 738 N.E.2d 153. Further, the appellate court upheld the circuit court's determination that the remaining statutory requirements for disclosure were met. 316 Ill. App.3d at 1119, 250 Ill.Dec. 189, 738 N.E.2d 153. The appellate court also vacated the circuit court's order of contempt against Capra, finding that Capra was not contemptuous of the circuit court, but rather had subjected herself to a contempt finding only to secure appellate review of the circuit court's disclosure orders. 316 Ill.App.3d at 1119, 250 Ill.Dec. 189, 738 N.E.2d 153.
The dissent concluded that Emilio had not placed his mental condition at issue in the medical malpractice action. Rather, the dissent opined, plaintiffs merely answered defense counsel's questions during their depositions, and that their truthful answers did not give rise to disclosure under the Act. 316 Ill.App.3d at 1119-20, 250 Ill.Dec. 189, 738 N.E.2d 153 (South, J., dissenting).
Capra appeals from the judgment of the appellate court. We granted the Illinois Trial Lawyers Association leave to submit an amicus curiae brief in support of plaintiffs. 155 Ill.2d R. 345.
Because discovery orders are not final orders, they are not ordinarily appealable. Norskog v. Pfiel, 197 Ill.2d 60, 69, 257 Ill.Dec. 899, 755 N.E.2d 1 (2001). Rather, they are reviewable on appeal from the final judgment. People ex rel. Scott v. Silverstein, 87 Ill.2d 167, 171, 57 Ill.Dec. 585, 429 N.E.2d 483 (1981). However, it is well settled that a contempt proceeding is an appropriate method for testing the correctness of a discovery order. Norskog, 197 Ill.2d at 69,257 Ill.Dec. 899,755 N.E.2d 1; People ex rel. General Motors Corp. v. Bua, 37 Ill.2d 180, 189, 226 N.E.2d 6 (1967) (collecting cases); Lewis v. Family Planning Management, Inc., 306 Ill.App.3d 918, 922, 240 Ill.Dec. 56, 715 N.E.2d 743 (1999). When an individual appeals from a contempt sanction imposed for violating, or threatening to violate, a discovery order, the contempt finding is final and appealable and presents to the reviewing court the propriety of that discovery order. See Norskog, 197 Ill.2d at 69,257 Ill.Dec. 899,755 N.E.2d 1; Silverstein, 87...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Vision Point of Sale, Inc. v. Haas
...an abuse of discretion, the decision of the circuit court on this issue will not be disturbed. See Reda v. Advocate Health Care, 199 Ill.2d 47, 54, 262 Ill.Dec. 394, 765 N.E.2d 1002 (2002). Having answered the question of law certified for appeal, we next consider the propriety of the circu......
-
State Bar Ass'n Mut. Ins. Co. v. Cavenagh
...barring Cavenagh from discovery. We review the circuit court's ruling for an abuse of discretion. Reda v. Advocate Health Care, 199 Ill.2d 47, 54, 262 Ill.Dec. 394, 765 N.E.2d 1002 (2002). ¶ 45 The only claim still at issue when Cavenagh issued his discovery requests was ISBA Mutual's breac......
-
Thompson v. N.J.
...find that the recipient has introduced his mental condition as an element of his claim or defense.” Reda v. Advocate Health Care, 199 Ill.2d 47, 57, 262 Ill.Dec. 394, 765 N.E.2d 1002 (2002). “If the recipient has not placed his mental health at issue, disclosure of the records or communicat......
-
Motorola Solutions, Inc. v. Zurich Ins. Co.
...on discovery matters “will not be disturbed on appeal absent a manifest abuse of discretion.” Reda v. Advocate Health Care, 199 Ill.2d 47, 54, 262 Ill.Dec. 394, 765 N.E.2d 1002 (2002). A court abuses its discretion “when its ruling ‘is arbitrary, fanciful, unreasonable, or where no reasonab......
-
Table of Cases
...Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corp., 494 Ill App3d 65, 634 NE2d 574, 343 Ill Dec 250, §4:102 Reda v. Advocate Health Corp. , 199 Ill2d 47, 765 NE2d 1002, 262 Ill Dec 394 (2002), §§21:90, 21:91, 21:44, 21:273, 21:308, 24:20 Redelman v. Claire Sprayway, Inc. 375 Ill App3d 912, 874 NE2d ......
-
Table of Cases
...NE2d 606 (2001), §7:80 Reagor v. Traveler’s Insurance Co. , 92 Ill App 3d 99, 415 NE2d 512 (1980), §3:140 Reda v. Advocate Health Care , 199 Ill 2d 47, 765 NE2d 1002 (2002), §§7:80, 7:120 A-581 Table of Cases Reda v. Estate of Reda , 408 Ill App 3d 379, 944 NE2d 378 (2011), §16:10 Redelmann......
-
Privileges
...v. Northwest Community Hospital, Inc., 342 Ill App 3d 741, 795 NE2d 964, 277 Ill Dec 296 (1st Dist 2003), Reda v. Advocate Health Care, 199 Ill 2d 47, 765 NE2d 1002, 262 Ill Dec 394 (2002).] [§§21:45-21:49 Reserved] PRIVILEGES 21-13 Privileges §21:55 C. Waiving a Privilege 1. Basic Points §......
-
Privileges
...v. Northwest Community Hospital, Inc., 342 Ill App 3d 741, 795 NE2d 964, 277 Ill Dec 296 (1st Dist 2003), Reda v. Advocate Health Care, 199 Ill 2d 47, 765 NE2d 1002, 262 Ill Dec 394 (2002).] [§§21:45-21:49 Reserved] C. Waiving a Privilege 1. BASIC POINTS §21:50 Analytical Approaches to Waiv......