Ward v. Decatur Mem'l Hosp.
Decision Date | 20 June 2019 |
Docket Number | Docket No. 123937 |
Citation | 160 N.E.3d 1,442 Ill.Dec. 428,2019 IL 123937 |
Parties | Gerald R. WARD, Appellee, v. DECATUR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, Appellant. |
Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
¶ 1 The primary issue in this appeal is whether res judicata bars plaintiff Gerald R. Ward's refiled action because he voluntarily dismissed the third amended complaint after the Macon County circuit court had involuntarily dismissed several counts from the original, first, and second amended complaints in the initial action. Richter v. Prairie Farms Dairy, Inc. , 2016 IL 119518, 402 Ill.Dec. 870, 53 N.E.3d 1, controls the outcome of this case; therefore, we affirm the judgment of the appellate court, reversing the grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant Decatur Memorial Hospital (Hospital).
¶ 3 The underlying claims involve alleged medical malpractice sustained by the decedent (Ward's brother) at the Hospital. In mid-December 2007, the decedent had gastric bypass surgery at the Hospital. According to Ward, shortly thereafter, the decedent developed a bed sore that became infected. The Hospital discharged him four days after the procedure. In January 2008, the decedent died from complications associated with a bacterial infection.
¶ 5 In December 2009, Ward filed his initial nine-count complaint (No. 09 L 209). He named the Hospital, "Decatur Memorial Hospital Home Health Services," and unknown employees of the Hospital as defendants. In count I, on behalf of the decedent's estate, Ward alleged that the Hospital breached its duty of care to the decedent by, among other things, failing to diagnose or to treat the bed sore that developed during his stay. In count II, in his individual capacity, Ward raised a wrongful death claim against the Hospital. In count III, in his individual capacity, Ward claimed that the Hospital should reimburse him for the decedent's medical bills and funeral expenses under the "Family Expense Act."
¶ 6 In count IV, on behalf of the estate, Ward alleged that Decatur Memorial Hospital Home Health Services breached its duty of care to the decedent. In count V, in his individual capacity, Ward raised a wrongful death claim against Decatur Memorial Hospital Home Health Services. In count VI, in his individual capacity, Ward claimed that he was entitled to family expenses from Decatur Memorial Hospital Home Health Services.
¶ 7 In count VII, on behalf of the estate, Ward claimed that unknown employees breached their duty of care to the decedent. In count VIII, in his individual capacity, Ward raised a wrongful death claim against unknown employees. In count IX, in his individual capacity, Ward claimed that he was entitled to family expenses from unknown employees.
¶ 8 In May 2010, the Hospital filed a combined motion to dismiss the complaint. The Hospital moved to dismiss counts I, II, IV, and paragraph 4(d) of counts IV through VI under section 2-615 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code) ( 735 ILCS 5/2-615 (West 2010) ) for failure to allege sufficient facts to state a cause of action. In those counts, Ward alleged that the Hospital's nurses failed to diagnose the decedent's pressure sore. Because nurses cannot make medical diagnoses, the Hospital asked the trial court to strike the counts.
¶ 9 The Hospital also noted that under section 2-622(g) of the Code, plaintiff's failure "to file an affidavit and report in compliance with this [s]ection shall be grounds for dismissal under [s]ection 2-619." Id. § 2-622(g). Arguing that Ward's report failed to satisfy the statutory requirements, the Hospital moved to dismiss the entire complaint. It further observed that Ward had not been appointed special administrator for the decedent's estate; therefore, it moved to dismiss counts I, II, IV, V, VI, and VII. Additionally, the Hospital noted that although the complaint referenced the "Family Expense Act," Ward likely meant the "Rights of Married Persons Act," which did not allow a sibling to recover for another sibling's medical expenses. As such, the Hospital asked the court to dismiss counts III, VI, and IX of the complaint. Finally, because Ward lacked jurisdiction to sue unknown persons, the Hospital argued that counts III, VI, and IX also should be dismissed.
¶ 10 In July 2010, the trial court ruled on the Hospital's motion to dismiss the complaint. Because no court had appointed Ward as administrator for the decedent's estate, the trial court dismissed counts I and IV without prejudice. Ward conceded that his reliance on the Family Expense Act was misplaced, and the court determined that he alleged no facts to establish the Hospital's legal responsibility to pay the decedent's medical and funeral expenses. Accordingly, the court dismissed counts III and VI without prejudice.
¶ 11 The trial court observed that, in the report Ward filed under section 2-622 of the Code (id. § 2-622(a)(1) ( )), the health care professional did not identify his reasons for determining that a meritorious cause of action existed. It therefore dismissed count II without prejudice. Finally, noting that section 2-413 of the Code (id. § 2-413) did not authorize naming unknown employees as defendants, the court ruled that counts VII, VIII, and IX were "properly stricken." The court granted Ward leave to file an amended complaint, affidavit, and report within 28 days.
¶ 13 In August 2010, Ward filed a first amended complaint. In count I, on behalf of the decedent's estate, Ward alleged that the Hospital, its agents, and its employees breached their duty to treat and to care for the decedent in accordance with reasonable and proper hospital practices. In count II, in his individual capacity, Ward raised a wrongful death claim against the Hospital. In count III, on behalf of the estate, Ward alleged that Decatur Memorial Hospital Home Health Services, its agents, and its employees breached their duty to treat and to care for the decedent in accordance with reasonable and proper home health care practices. Finally, in count IV, in his individual capacity, Ward raised a wrongful death claim against Decatur Memorial Hospital Home Health Services.
¶ 14 The Hospital filed a combined motion to dismiss the first amended complaint. It moved to dismiss counts I and III on the ground that Ward had not obtained leave of court before refiling them. The Hospital then noted that counts II and IV, which "purport[ed] to sound in wrongful death," were brought by Ward in his individual capacity. But it argued that recovery under the Wrongful Death Act ( 740 ILCS 180/0.01 et seq. (West 2010)) was limited to the decedent's personal representative; Ward could not recover in his individual capacity.
¶ 15 The Hospital moved to dismiss counts III and IV on the ground that "Decatur Memorial Hospital Home Health Services" did not exist and, thus, could not be sued. Further, the Hospital moved to dismiss the first amended complaint in its entirety, contending that "the specific allegations of negligent acts consist of nothing but legal or factual conclusions." It also moved to dismiss counts I and II of the complaint, arguing that the counts did not "state the standard of care applicable to the various persons for whom [the Hospital] is sought to be held liable." Finally, the Hospital moved to dismiss the first amended complaint in its entirety, arguing that the report from Ward's health care professional failed to support his allegations that the Hospital breached any duty of care.
¶ 16 The trial court granted dismissal of count I without prejudice, concluding that the report from Ward's doctor lacked the necessary detail to support his allegations. Because count II was brought in Ward's individual capacity, rather than as a representative of the decedent, the court dismissed it without prejudice. As to counts III and IV, Decatur Memorial Hospital Home Health Services did not exist; therefore, the parties agreed that those counts should be dismissed. The court granted Ward leave to file a second amended complaint within 30 days.
¶ 18 In November 2010, Ward filed his second amended complaint. In count I, on behalf of the decedent's estate, Ward raised a survival claim under a theory of respondeat superior against the Hospital. This count alleged that the Hospital "through its agents and/or employees" breached its duty of care to the decedent by, among other things, failing to properly visually assess the patient, failing to identify the skin breakdown, and failing to treat his ulcer to control the infection. Ward further alleged that physicians breached their duty to treat and to administer care to the decedent "in accordance with reasonable and proper surgical practice." Count II was a wrongful death claim under a theory of respondeat superior based on the same allegations as in count I.
¶ 19 In count III, Ward raised an institutional negligence/survival claim against the Hospital on behalf of the estate. Ward alleged that the Hospital breached its duty of care to the decedent by, among other things, failing to have adequately trained nurses, failing to require the nurses to consult with certain members of the surgical staff, and breaching the state's license requirements. Count IV was a claim for institutional negligence/wrongful death against the Hospital based on the same allegations as in count III.
¶ 20 The Hospital filed a combined motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. It moved to dismiss counts I and II, arguing that Ward failed to allege sufficient facts to state a cause of action on the theory of respondeat superior . According to the Hospital, it was "still unclear as to ‘who did what,’ and what the proper standard of care [was] as to the various agents and employees." The Hospital also moved to dismiss counts III...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Creation Supply, Inc. v. Hahn
...(1) a final judgment on the merits; (2) identity of cause of action; and (3) identity of parties or their privies.14 Ward v. Decatur Mem'l Hosp. , 2019 IL 123937, ¶ 45, 442 Ill.Dec. 428, 160 N.E.3d 1, 9. This court has little difficulty with prongs (2) or (3) of the res judicata test. There......
-
Choi v. Kondaur Capital Corp.
...could have been decided in the first action, not just those matters actually decided. Ward v. Decatur Mem'l Hosp., 2019 IL 123937, ¶ 44, 160 N.E.3d 1, 8-9. The res judicata defense requires three showings: (1) a final judgment on the merits; (2) identify of cause of action; and (3) identity......
-
Davis v. City of Chi.
...filed federal lawsuit. Id. at 525, 529-32.Plaintiffs acknowledge 4901 Corp ., but contend that Ward v. Decatur Mem'l Hosp. , 2019 IL 123937, 442 Ill.Dec. 428, 160 N.E.3d 1 (2019) controls. In Ward , the court dismissed plaintiff's complaint several times without prejudice always allowing pl......
-
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Coghlan
...the practical necessity that, once decided on the merits, litigation and controversies shall remain in repose. Ward v. Decatur Memorial Hospital , 2019 IL 123937, ¶ 44, 442 Ill.Dec. 428, 160 N.E.3d 1. Generally, " ‘[t]he rule in Illinois is that res judicata extends only to the facts and co......