Redmond v. Central Community Hospital
Decision Date | 22 September 1978 |
Docket Number | No. 77-1335,77-1335 |
Citation | 21 Ill.Dec. 801,65 Ill.App.3d 669,382 N.E.2d 95 |
Parties | , 21 Ill.Dec. 801 Hattie REDMOND, as Administratrix of the Estate of Hubert Redmond, Deceased, and Hattie Redmond, Individually and as guardian of certain minors, Plaintiff- Appellant, v. CENTRAL COMMUNITY HOSPITAL and J. Gurk et al., Defendants-Appellees. |
Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Leroy P. Vital and Harthe, Vital, Stroger, Boarman & Williams, Chicago, for plaintiff-appellant.
Hinshaw, Culbertson, Moelmann, Hoban & Fuller, Chicago (John D. Cassiday and Stanley J. Davidson, Chicago, of counsel), for defendants-appellees.
Plaintiff appeals from an order which (1) granted summary judgment in favor of Central Community Hospital (hereafter defendant); and (2) denied her motion for sanctions for failure of defendant to comply with her discovery requests.
Initially, Hattie Redmond, as an individual and not as personal representative, brought suit in 1974 1 against defendant and J. Gurk (the latter is not involved in this appeal), alleging certain acts and omissions, one or more of which proximately caused her husband's death on October 16, 1972, and, as a direct and proximate result, that she and their children suffered loss of support for which she seeks damages.
On April 24, 1975, Hattie Redmond filed a third amended complaint 2 as administrator of her husband's estate, which in substance was identical to the original complaint, except that Count I contained an allegation that the estate of decedent sustained loss rather than decedent's next of kin, as was the case in the original complaint, and that in Count II it was alleged "that the estate of decedent did sustain damages, expenses, costs, and pain and suffering as a direct and proximate cause of the foregoing acts or omissions." On August 27, 1976, plaintiff, under Supreme Court Rules 214 and 219 (Ill.Rev.Stat.1975, ch. 110A, pars. 214, 219) sought the production by defendant of (1) all records concerning the admission, treatment and discharge of decedent; and (2) the relationship between defendant and Dr. J. Gurk. Subsequently, on September 29, plaintiff served defendant with a set of interrogatories seeking more detailed information concerning substantially the same information.
Defendant answered the third amended complaint by generally denying each of its allegations and asserting certain affirmative defenses, pertinent of which is that the action for the wrongful death of decedent was barred by the failure of the administrator to bring suit within two years of his death.
On October 26, 1976, defendant filed interrogatories (which were answered by plaintiff on December 29) and a request for an admission of facts pursuant to Rule 216 (Ill.Rev.Stat.1975, ch. 110A, par. 216). Therein, plaintiff was asked to admit the truth of the following: (1) that she was not appointed administrator of decedent's estate until November 26, 1974, which is more than two years after his death; (2) that her first allegation that she was appointed administratrix appears in her third amended complaint filed on January 30, 1975; (3) that there are no facts to support the allegation that Dr. Gurk was its employee, agent or resident; (4) that no act or omission on its part caused or contributed to the injuries and/or damages for which the suit was brought; (5) that no expert witness will testify that any act or omission on its part or its agents or employees, caused or contributed to cause any such injuries and/or damages for which the suit was brought; and (6) that no expert witness will testify that any act or omission on its part constituted malpractice.
On January 18, 1977, the trial court denied defendant's motion for summary judgment based upon plaintiff's admission of the above facts by her failure to deny or object to them within 28 days as required by Rule 216. On the same day, the court allowed plaintiff to file an answer to the request for admissions in which she admitted that she was not appointed administrator until November 26, 1974, but neither admitted nor denied the other requests stating that they were improper.
Subsequently, the case was assigned to another judge who, on April 5, 1977, ordered plaintiff "to submit for deposition her purported experts Dr. Thapebi and Dr. Renato Tanquilut for their deposition within one week, * * * ." In an interrogatory answer plaintiff had previously named those doctors as her treating physicians, but to a following interrogatory concerning persons "who had been contacted for expert opinion," she made no specific answer, stating "information given in previous answers." So far as the record discloses it was on the basis of these interrogatory answers that plaintiff was ordered to submit the doctors for deposition. In the same order, defendant was directed to answer "within 28 days thereafter" interrogatories of plaintiff which had been served on defendant some six months prior.
The depositions of the doctors had not been taken when, on June 22, defendant filed its second motion for summary judgment asserting that plaintiff had informed the court on April 5, 1977, that Drs. Thapebi and Tanquilut were her expert medical witnesses; that on that date the court ordered plaintiff to submit those doctors for deposition; that defendant's attorneys had contacted those doctors and were informed that neither had agreed to testify as an expert witness as indicated in their unsworn letters to that effect which were attached as exhibits; and that in light of these letters and plaintiff's answer to its request for admissions, which was attached as an exhibit, and because plaintiff had no expert testimony she could not "maintain an action for alleged malpractice against this defendant."
In response, plaintiff asserted that statements of the physicians do not relieve them of their duty to testify under subpoena as attending physicians; that other expert testimony may be obtainable; that her case might be established by the codefendant, Dr. Gurk, under section 60 (Ill.Rev.Stat.1975, ch. 110, par. 60); and that, in any event, she could not produce the physicians for deposition other than by subpoenaing them a course equally available to defendant. Plaintiff attached a letter from a Dr. John Coleman, which states in pertinent part that he had read an attached hospital transfer record of defendant pertaining to decedent and that he was prepared to state from the copy of its transfer record that defendant "should have either immediately commenced intensive care, or immediately referred the patient to a facility capable of giving intensive care" and that "such treatment might have substantially increased his chances of survival."
In addition, plaintiff moved for sanctions against defendant for answers to her interrogatories and for the production of documents she had requested in August and September, 1976, and for the failure to produce a nurse for deposition, notice for which was served in February, 1977.
On June 22, 1977, defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted, and plaintiff's motion for sanctions was denied.
OPINIONThe order appealed from stated that summary judgment was granted "pursuant to Supreme Court Rules 217 and 219(c)." Plaintiff contends that neither rule provides a basis for dismissal of her case. Defendant makes no attempt to support a dismissal grounded upon non-compliance with Rule 217, but maintains that dismissal was proper under Rule 219(c), which provides in pertinent part that upon the unreasonable refusal to comply with any provision of Rules 201 through 218 or the failure to comply with any order entered under those rules, the court on motion may impose certain sanctions including dismissal of the action.
Defendant does not specifically assert in its brief that plaintiff unreasonably refused to comply with any order let alone one entered under Rules 201 through 218. He does, however, argue that plaintiff did not comply with the order of April 5, 1976, requiring that she submit her purported medical experts, Dr. Thapebi and Dr. Tanquilut, for depositions within one week. The doctors were never so submitted by plaintiff, and defendant suggests that this was a sufficient basis under Rule 219(c) to dismiss the action, although it does not inform us of the specific rule under which the April 5 order was entered. Rule 201(b) sets forth the scope of discovery under the rules as follows:
"Except as provided in these rules, a party may obtain by discovery full disclosure regarding any matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action, * * * ." Ill.Rev.Stat.1975, ch. 110A, par. 201(b).
Thus, it is obvious that the rules were intended to provide a party the means to discover relevant matter from other parties by motion or upon written request and, from third persons, through the use of subpoenas. However, we find no provision in Rules 201 through 218 allowing a party or a court to require a litigant to submit for deposition persons who are not under the control of that party and who necessarily would have to be subpoenaed to obtain their presence. This is particularly so here where, from their unsworn statements attached to defendant's motion for summary judgment, it should have been obvious that they were not under the control of plaintiff. If defendant wished to record the knowledge of those persons, the rules permitted it to take their depositions by subpoena, if necessary, and we believe that is the course that should have been followed.
In view thereof, we find no unreasonable refusal to comply with any provision in Rules 201 through 218 and no failure of compliance with any order entered under those rules. Accordingly, we see no justification under the facts and circumstances here for dismissal under Rule 219(c).
Nevertheless defendant also maintains that the dismissal was properly entered on other grounds appearing in the record. First,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Carrizales v. Rheem Mfg. Co., Inc.
...within the time provided is the result of circumstances beyond the control of the litigant" (Redmond v. Central Community Hospital (1978), 65 Ill.App.3d 669, 678, 21 Ill.Dec. 801, 382 N.E.2d 95). Johannsen v. General Foods Corp. (1986), 146 Ill.App.3d 296, 299, 99 Ill.Dec. 851, 496 N.E.2d 5......
-
Daleanes v. Board of Educ. of Benjamin Elementary School Dist. 25, DuPage County
...to admit. (Bluestein v. Upjohn Co. (1981), 102 Ill.App.3d 672, 58 Ill.Dec. 548, 430 N.E.2d 580; Redmond v. Central Community Hospital (1978), 65 Ill.App.3d 669, 21 Ill.Dec. 801, 382 N.E.2d 95.) The Redmond court suggested that permitting the filing of a late response is permissible where th......
-
United Nuclear Corp. v. Energy Conversion Devices, Inc.
...relevant matter by motion or on written request and from third parties through use of subpoena. (Redmond v. Central Community Hospital (1978), 65 Ill.App.3d 669, 21 Ill.Dec. 801, 382 N.E.2d 95.) The purpose of discovery is also to enable counsel to prepare better and evaluate their cases (B......
-
Vaughn v. Speaker
...(See, e.g., Pavlov v. Konwall (1983), 113 Ill.App.3d 576, 69 Ill.Dec. 547, 447 N.E.2d 982; Redmond v. Central Community Hospital (1978), 65 Ill.App.3d 669, 21 Ill.Dec. 801, 382 N.E.2d 95.) While we express no opinion whether section 2-616(b) was properly applied in those cases, we do conclu......