Case Title: Vicencio v. Lincoln-Way Builders, Inc.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 93687

State: illinois

Court: Illinois Supreme Court

Date: 2003-04-17T00:00:00Z

Document:
Docket No. 93687-Agenda 12-January 2003.
NICOLAS VICENCIO, Appellee, v. LINCOLN-WAY 
BUILDERS, INC., et al. (Lincoln-Way Builders, Inc., Appellant).
Opinion filed April 17, 2003.
	JUSTICE GARMAN delivered the opinion of the court: 
	Plaintiff, Nicolas Vicencio, prevailed in the underlying
personal injury action against defendant, Lincoln-Way Builders,
Inc., and was awarded damages by the circuit court of Will County
in excess of $100,000. He thereafter successfully sought
reimbursement of costs totaling $5,341.80, pursuant to section
5-108 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code) (735 ILCS 5/5-108
(West 2000)), and Supreme Court Rule 208 (134 Ill. 2d R. 208).
Defendant appealed (155 Ill. 2d R. 304(a)), and the appellate court
affirmed in part and reversed in part (328 Ill. App. 3d 439). We
granted defendant's petition for leave to appeal to resolve a split
among the appellate districts on the question of whether a trial
court may assess as costs the fee charged by a plaintiff's treating
physician for his participation in an evidence deposition that was
presented to the jury.

BACKGROUND
	Defendant agreed that it was responsible for $283.80 of
plaintiff's costs, including the filing fee, the service of summons
fee, and trial subpoena fees paid to two of plaintiff's witnesses, but
disputed the suggestion that it was obligated to pay the trial
subpoena fee of a third witness, who failed to appear at trial and
whose evidence deposition was subsequently read to the jury. In
addition, defendant denied that plaintiff was entitled to recover
any costs associated with the videotaping of the evidence
deposition of plaintiff's treating physician, Dr. Preston Wolin. The
expenses included Dr. Wolin's fee and the fee charged by the
videographer. Defendant also argued that the extra costs associated
with the production of an expedited transcript of Dr. Wolin's
deposition should not be imposed on it, because plaintiff's failure
to take the evidence deposition in a timely manner necessitated the
excess costs. Other challenged expenses included the fee paid to
the technician who operated the video equipment at trial and the
individual who interpreted for plaintiff during his testimony at
trial. After a hearing on the matter, the trial court entered the
following written order: "In the exercise of its discretion and
having found that the contested costs were necessary and integral
to the presentation of the plaintiff's case to the jury[, i]t is ordered
that the costs awarded to plaintiff in this cause are $5,381.80[,]
which is the total of the uncontested costs of [$]283.00 and the
contested costs of [$]5,058.80."
	The appellate court found that the trial court had not abused
its discretion by taxing as costs the fee charged by Dr. Wolin. 328
Ill. App. 3d at 443. According to the appellate court, this expense
was "necessarily incurred by plaintiff in asserting his rights in
court," as opposed to an "ordinary expense[] of ligitation," and
was therefore properly taxed as a cost. 328 Ill. App. 3d at 442. The
appellate court also affirmed the trial court's awarding as costs the
fees of the court reporter and videographer because "the deposition
itself was 'necessarily used at trial.' " 328 Ill. App. 3d at 443. As
to the interpreter's fee and the subpoena fee paid to the plaintiff's
witness who failed to appear, the appellate court reversed, finding
these items unauthorized by any rule or statute. 328 Ill. App. 3d at
444.

ANALYSIS 
	As appellant, defendant formulates the question for this court
as whether a trial court may assess as costs "the fee charged by an
expert witness for his testimony at trial." We will address the
narrower question actually presented by the facts of this
case-whether the trial court may assess as costs the fee charged by
a nonparty treating physician for attending an evidence deposition.
	Defendant's petition for leave to appeal, which also serves as
its brief, does not comply with our rule requiring the appellant to
provide a concise statement of the applicable standard of review,
with citation to authority. 188 Ill. 2d R. 341(e)(3). At oral
argument, counsel suggested that the issue should be reviewed de
novo, because it is a question of law. Plaintiff responds that the
award of costs is within the sound discretion of the trial court and
should not be reversed on appeal absent an abuse of that
discretion. Although the cases cited by plaintiff provide a
definition of the abuse of discretion standard, they do not support
the assertion that the trial court indeed has the discretion to award
such costs.
	We will review the underlying issue-whether the trial court
has the authority to award such costs-de novo, because it is a
question of law. Donaldson v. Central Illinois Public Service Co.,
199 Ill. 2d 63, 100 (2002). Because we conclude that the trial court
does not have such authority, we find it unnecessary to consider
whether the trial court abused its discretion.
	At common law, a losing litigant was not responsible for
paying the costs and expenses of his prevailing adversary.
Patterson v. Northern Trust Co., 286 Ill. 564, 568 (1919). Since
1845, however, the prevailing plaintiff's recovery of costs has
been authorized by statute in Illinois. See Ill. Rev. Stat. 1845, ch.
33, par. 4; Ill. Rev. Stat. 1874, ch. 33, par. 7; Ill. Rev. Stat. 1981,
ch. 33, par. 7. Since 1983, the cost-recovery provision has read:
			"If any person sues in any court of this state in any
action for damages personal to the plaintiff, and recovers
in such action, then judgment shall be entered in favor of
the plaintiff to recover costs against the defendant, to be
taxed, and the same shall be recovered and enforced as
other judgments for the payment of money, except in the
cases hereinafter provided." (Emphasis added.) 735 ILCS
5/5-108 (West 2000).
A similar provision mandates the award of costs to a prevailing
defendant in a civil case (735 ILCS 5/5-109 (West 2000)), and the
award of costs to the prevailing party when judgment is granted
upon motion (735 ILCS 5/5-110 (West 2000)).
	The statutes allowing recovery of costs are in derogation of
the common law. Thus, it has long been said that they must be
narrowly construed (Department of Revenue v. Appellate Court,
of Illinois, First District, 67 Ill. 2d 392, 396 (1977)), and that only
those costs specifically designated by statute may be taxed as costs
(Ryerson v. Apland, 378 Ill. 472, 477 (1941)). See, e.g., Patterson,
286 Ill.  at 568 ("Any party claiming a judgment for his costs
against his adversary must bring himself within the operation of
some statutory provision, and courts have no power to adjudge
costs against anyone on merely equitable grounds").
	Although the "power to impose costs must ultimately be
found in some statute," the legislature may nevertheless grant the
power to the courts to make rules under which costs may be taxed.
Galowich v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 92 Ill. 2d 157, 162 (1982),
citing Wintersteen v. National Cooperage & Woodenware Co.,
361 Ill. 95, 108 (1935). However, the delegation of rulemaking
authority must be explicit: "the courts cannot make such rules or
orders and impose costs thereunder unless the power so to do is
expressly given them by statute or ratified by legislative
enactment." Wintersteen, 361 Ill.  at 108.
	Three sections of the Code arguably provide authority for a
trial court to tax as costs the fees of the treating doctor in the
present case: sections 5-108, 1-104, and 1-105.

Section 5-108
	Section 5-108 provides that judgment "shall be entered" in
favor of the prevailing plaintiff to recover costs against the
defendant. 735 ILCS 5/5-108 (West 2000). The provision is
mandatory, but as noted above, the mandate must be narrowly
construed. The term "costs" is not defined in section 5-108 or any
of the previous versions of the statute.
	The cardinal rule of statutory construction is that the court
must ascertain and give effect to the intent of the legislature. Paris
v. Feder, 179 Ill. 2d 173, 177 (1997). When construing a statute,
the court should look first to the language of the statute, giving the
terms their plain and ordinary meaning. Paris, 179 Ill. 2d  at 177.
The plain and ordinary meaning of the term "costs," however, does
not enlighten us. See Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary
262 (10th ed. 2000) (defining the singular "cost" as "the amount
or equivalent paid or charged for something," and the plural
"costs" as "expenses incurred in litigation; esp: those given by the
law or the court to the prevailing party against the losing party").
	In Galowich, this court stated that the term "costs" has
acquired "a fixed and technical meaning in the law." Galowich, 92 Ill. 2d  at 165. In effect, this court acknowledged that in this
context, the word "costs" is a term of art. See Black's Law
Dictionary 1483 (7th ed. 1999) (defining a term of art as a word's
"specific, precise meaning in a given specialty, apart from its
general meaning in ordinary contexts"). The meaning ascribed to
the term of art by the Galowich court was: "Costs are allowances
in the nature of incidental damages awarded by law to reimburse
the prevailing party, to some extent at least, for the expenses
necessarily incurred in the assertion of his rights in court."
Galowich, 92 Ill. 2d  at 165-66. This definition is descriptive, but
it is not prescriptive. That is, it describes a characteristic shared by
all categories of taxable costs ("necessarily incurred"), but it does
not prescribe a rule that draws a line between those that must be
taxed pursuant to section 5-108 and those that may be taxed
pursuant to another statute or rule. For example, a corporation may
appear in court as plaintiff only through counsel. 705 ILCS 205/11
(West 2000); 177 Ill. 2d R. 282(b). Thus, every time a corporate
plaintiff is involved in litigation, attorney fees are "necessarily
incurred." Yet, such fees have never been suggested to be taxable
costs under section 5-108. Neither the plain and ordinary meaning
of the word, nor our description in Galowich, provide a working
definition of the "costs" covered by section 5-108.
	Under its definition of "costs," Black's Law Dictionary
distinguishes between court costs, the "charges or fees taxed by
the court, such as filing fees, jury fees, courthouse fees, and
reporter fees," and litigation costs, the "expenses of litigation,
prosecution, or other legal transaction, esp[ecially] those allowed
in favor of one party against the other." Black's Law Dictionary
350 (7th ed. 1999). It is undisputed that section 5-108 mandates
the taxing of costs commonly understood to be "court costs," such
as filing fees, subpoena fees, and statutory witness fees, to the
losing party.
	The fee of the treating physician that is at issue in the present
case is a "litigation cost," and as such, is not a cost the taxing of
which is mandated by section 5-108. Thus, it may be taxed as a
cost only if authorized by another statute or by supreme court rule.
See, e.g., House of Vision, Inc. v. Hiyane, 42 Ill. 2d 45, 51-52
(1969) (noting that, apart from statute, the successful party may
not recover "the ordinary expenses and burdens of litigation").

Sections 1-104 and 1-105
	Under section 1-104 of the Code and its precursors, this court
has long had the authority to make rules of pleading, practice, and
procedure. See Ill. Rev. Stat. 1933, ch. 110, par. 126. At present,
section 1-104, entitled "Power of courts to make rules," delegates
to this court the "power to make rules of pleading, practice and
procedure for the circuit, Appellate and Supreme Courts
supplementary to, but not inconsistent with the provisions of this
Act." 735 ILCS 5/1-104 (West 2000).
	We note that the court's power to make rules regarding the
assessment of costs is not inherent in the judicial power, but "finds
its lodgment in the specific legislative grant whereby the court was
authorized" to promulgate these rules. Wintersteen, 361 Ill.  at 108.
In Wintersteen, this court found express authority "to tax costs
covering the reasonable expenses of procuring the testimony
which the adverse party ought to admit" in a provision of the Civil
Practice Act. Wintersteen, 361 Ill.  at 108. This court made it clear,
however, that absent such express authorization, the court had no
authority to promulgate rules regarding taxation of costs. In
addition, section 1-104 clearly prohibits the making of rules that
would be inconsistent with section 5-108.
	In 1955, the legislature delegated additional authority to this
court to make rules "for the orderly and expeditious administration
and enforcement" of the Code, including rules for the imposition
of costs. Ill. Rev. Stat. 1955, ch. 110, par. 3, now codified at 735
ILCS 5/1-105 (West 2000). Further, the Code itself is to be
liberally construed, and the "rule that statues in derogation of the
common law must be strictly construed does not apply" to the
Code or to "rules made in relation thereto." 735 ILCS 5/1-106
(West 2000).
	The express grant of authority in section 1-105, liberally
construed, gives this court broad discretion to formulate rules,
including the assessment of costs, as a means of enforcing the
provisions of the Code. This section does not, however, authorize
this court to assess costs merely on the basis of doing equity or to
"reimburse the prevailing party" (Galowich, 92 Ill. 2d at 165) for
his necessary expenses. That rules promulgated under this section
are to serve as enforcement mechanisms only is evident from the
context in which the phrase "assessment of costs" appears:
			"The Supreme Court may provide by rule for the
orderly and expeditious administration and enforcement
of this Act and of the rules, including the striking of
pleadings, the dismissal of claims, the entry of defaults,
the assessment of costs, the assessment against an
offending party of the reasonable expenses, including
attorney's fees, which any violation causes another party
to incur, or other action that may be appropriate." 735
ILCS 5/1-105 (West 2000).
The provision contains a nonexclusive list of sanctions that may
be employed for the purpose of enforcing the Code. Thus, under
the authority delegated in section 1-105, this court may make rules
regarding the assessment of costs only if such costs are in the
nature of sanctions, not if they are "in the nature of incidental
damages" (Galowich, 92 Ill. 2d at 165).
	We now turn to the rules of this court, adopted pursuant to the
authority granted in sections 1-104 and 1-105 of the Code, to
determine whether the rules permit the trial court to tax as costs
the fees of Dr. Wolin.

Rule 208
	Plaintiff asserts that the source of the trial court's discretion
to award the fees of Dr. Wolin as costs can be found in Supreme
Court Rule 208(d). Rule 208 is contained in part E of our rules,
which governs discovery, requests for admission, and pretrial
procedure and, as such, was adopted pursuant to section 1-104 of
the Code. Rule 208(a) provides that the party "at whose instance
the deposition is taken shall pay the fees of the witness and of the
officer and the charges of the recorder or stenographer for
attending." 134 Ill. 2d R. 208(a). Paragraph (b) of the rule sets the
amounts to be paid. "Every witness attending before the officer is
entitled to the fees and mileage allowance provided by statute for
witnesses attending courts in this State." 134 Ill. 2d R. 208(b).
Paragraph (d) states: "The aforesaid fees and charges may in the
discretion of the trial court be taxed as costs." 134 Ill. 2d R.
208(d).
	Rule 208(d), however, does not permit the trial court to award
any or all fees and charges incurred in the taking of the deposition,
only those "aforesaid," that is, those fees and charges
"[m]entioned above" or "referred to previously" in the body of the
rule. Black's Law Dictionary 61 (7th ed. 1999). The charges
referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b) of Rule 208 include the
reasonable and necessary charges of the recorder or stenographer,
charges for transcription and filing, and the statutory fees of the
officer taking and certifying the deposition. 134 Ill. 2d Rs. 208(a),
(b). As for witness fees, Rule 208(b), titled "Amount," does not
mention any fee paid to secure the attendance of a witness beyond
the "fees and mileage allowance provided by statute for witnesses
attending courts in this State." (Emphasis added.) 134 Ill. 2d R.
208(b). A witness attending court receives the statutory fee of $20
per day and $0.20 per mile. 705 ILCS 35/4.3 (West 2000). The
plain language of Rule 208(d), therefore, does not authorize the
taxing of the cost at issue here.
	Nevertheless, when this court last considered the scope of
Rule 208, it implied that other expenses associated with
depositions might be taxable under the rule. In Galowich, the
plaintiffs moved for a voluntary dismissal (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1979, ch.
110, par. 52), with the intention of refiling the lawsuit. The
defendants objected, asking the court to either dismiss the case
with prejudice or to "impose costs beyond the usual items
contained in the clerk's bill." Galowich, 92 Ill. 2d  at 160. The
claimed costs included "filing fees, jury demand fees, witness fees,
costs of depositions, costs of transcripts, experts costs and related
expenses." Galowich, 92 Ill. 2d  at 160. Defendants estimated their
deposition expenses at approximately $200,000. Galowich, 92 Ill. 2d  at 160-61. The trial court assessed costs of $219 and defendants
appealed. The appellate court reversed, finding that Rule 208(d)
authorized the trial court, in its discretion, to tax as costs the
expenses incurred in taking depositions when a plaintiff moves for
voluntary dismissal. Galowich v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 93 Ill.
App. 3d 690, 693 (1981).
	In Galowich, after noting that the term "costs" has acquired
a fixed and technical meaning in the law (Galowich, 92 Ill. 2d at
165), we concluded that the "test for when the expense of a
deposition is taxable as costs is its necessary use at trial."
Galowich, 92 Ill. 2d  at 167. Although we noted that it might be
possible for the use of a discovery deposition to become a
necessity, such as when the deposed witness died or disappeared
before trial, we concluded that, in general, the cost of taking a
discovery deposition is one of the ordinary expenses of litigation
and, therefore, not recoverable by the prevailing party. Galowich,
92 Ill. 2d  at 166.
	Galowich, however, does not resolve the present case for two
reasons. First, in Galowich, this court did not interpret the term
"costs" in section 5-108 or the phrase "aforesaid costs" in Rule
208 to determine which types of costs might be taxed. Rather,
Galowich left this threshold question unanswered and formulated
a rule to guide the trial court's discretion when taxing costs
pursuant to Rule 208.
	Second, because our test required necessary use of the
deposition at trial, and because the matter in Galowich did not
proceed to trial, but was resolved by the plaintiff's taking a
voluntary dismissal, we concluded that the defendants were not
entitled to recover any of the costs incurred in taking discovery
depositions. Galowich, 92 Ill. 2d  at 167. In effect, the
determinative factor in Galowich was not "necessary use"; it was
"at trial." Although this court in Galowich may have implied that
all of the costs of a discovery deposition, perhaps even including
the professional fees of an expert witness, might be recoverable by
a plaintiff who prevails at trial, the entire discussion of deposition
expenses and what might or might not constitute "necessary use"
was dicta because it was not necessary to the resolution of that
case.(1)
	The present case requires us to address the question left open
in Galowich and we have done so by limiting costs recoverable
under Rule 208(d) to those expressly authorized by paragraphs (a),
(b), and (c) of the rule. Our holding must be read as limiting
application of the Galowich necessary-use-at-trial test to those
costs specifically referred to in Rule 208. Thus, if a deposition is
necessarily used at trial, only those costs enumerated in Rule 208,
not all costs associated with the deposition, may be taxed at the
trial court's discretion. Dr. Wolin's professional fee is not such a
cost. We must, therefore, look elsewhere for the source of a trial
court's authority, if any, to tax as costs the fee charged by a
nonparty treating physician whose testimony is taken by evidence
deposition.
	Before proceeding further with our consideration of the
doctor's fee, we note that defendant's petition for leave to appeal,
which serves as its brief, also asserts that the trial court erred in
taxing as costs the fees of the videographer and court reporter who
attended Dr. Wolin's deposition. Such fees are mentioned in Rule
208(a) and, as such, they are among the "aforesaid costs" that the
trial court has the discretion to tax under Rule 208(d) if the
deposition was necessarily used at trial. As noted above, our
suggestion in Galowich that use of a deposition would become
necessary if a deposed witness died or disappeared before trial was
dicta. See Galowich, 92 Ill. 2d  at 166. The present case, however,
did proceed to trial and the deposition was admitted into evidence.
Thus, we must now address the question that was not squarely
presented in Galowich-when is a deposition necessarily used at
trial?
	The trial court in the present case determined that Dr. Wolin's
deposition was necessarily used at trial because his testimony was
essential to the plaintiff's ability to prove his case. We hold that
necessity requires more than mere significance of the deposition
in terms of its evidentiary value. A deposition is necessarily used
at trial only when it is relevant and material and when the
deponent's testimony cannot be procured at trial as, for example,
if the deponent has died, has disappeared before trial, or is
otherwise unavailable to testify.
	Since we cannot determine from the record before use
whether Dr. Wolin's evidence deposition was used at trial as a
matter of necessity or purely as a matter of convenience, this cause
must be remanded to the trial court to determine whether the fees
of the videographer and court reporter may be taxed as costs to
defendant.

Rule 204
	Plaintiff contends that Rule 204(c), which was adopted in
1985 (subsequent to the Galowich decision), confers upon the trial
court the discretion to tax as costs the fee charged by Dr. Wolin
for his appearance at the evidence deposition. Rule 204(c)
provides:
			"Depositions of Physicians. The discovery depositions
of nonparty physicians being deposed in their professional
capacity may be taken only with the agreement of the
parties and the subsequent consent of the deponent or
under a subpoena issued upon order of court. A party shall
pay a reasonable fee to a physician for the time he or she
will spend testifying at any such deposition. Unless the
physician was retained by a party for the purpose of
rendering an opinion at trial, or unless otherwise ordered
by the court, the fee shall be paid by the party at whose
instance the deposition is taken." 166 Ill. 2d R. 204(c).
	The rule creates two exceptions to the general rule that the
party at whose instance the deposition is taken will bear the cost.
Plaintiff misconstrues the first exception, which applies only when
a party deposes a physician retained by the opposing party for the
purpose of offering opinion testimony at trial. In this circumstance,
the party who retained the expert is responsible for his or her
"professional fee, as well as other fees and expenses provided for
in Rule 208." 166 Ill. 2d R. 204, Committee Comments, at lxvi.
However, a nonparty treating physician, even though he or she
may offer an opinion during testimony, is not an expert or opinion
witness in the sense used here. See Tzystuck v. Chicago Transit
Authority, 124 Ill. 2d 226, 234-35 (1988) (determining that
treating physicians are not "expert witnesses" within meaning of
then-applicable pretrial disclosure rule). See also Boatmen's
National Bank of Belleville v. Martin, 223 Ill. App. 3d 740, 742
(1992) (determining that treating physicians are not opinion
witnesses under Rule 220). Thus, this exception to the general rule
does not apply to Dr. Wolin's deposition in the present case.
	The second exception provides that the trial court may order
"otherwise." Clearly, there are some circumstances, such as those
contemplated by Rule 219(e), under which it would be within the
discretion of the trial court to order that a treating physician's
reasonable fee be taxed as a cost. Plaintiff's assertion that this
language authorizes the trial court's taxing of Dr. Wolin's
professional fee is incorrect, however, because Rule 204(c) speaks
only of discovery depositions and Dr. Wolin gave an evidence
deposition.

Rule 212
	Rule 212(b), which was adopted pursuant to the court's
section 1-104 powers, governs evidence depositions, that is, those
depositions taken in anticipation of the potential need to use them
at trial. Evidence depositions may be used for any purpose for
which a discovery deposition may be used and if, at the time of
trial, certain conditions are met may be used by any party for any
purpose. 188 Ill. 2d R. 212(b). The rule requires that before an
evidence deposition may be used at trial, the court must give
consideration to both the "interest[s] of justice" and the
"importance of presenting the testimony of witnesses orally in
open court." 188 Ill. 2d R. 212(b)(3).
	Evidence depositions by physicians, however, need not meet
the conditions imposed on depositions by others to be admissible
at trial. "The evidence deposition of a physician or surgeon may be
introduced in evidence at trial on the motion of either party
regardless of the availability of the deponent, without prejudice to
the right of either party to subpoena or otherwise call the physician
or surgeon for attendance at trial." 188 Ill. 2d R. 212(b). In effect,
doctors are different. Our rules permit physicians to give evidence
depositions for their own convenience and the convenience of
parties, notwithstanding the strong preference for live testimony.
	Keeping in mind that defendant could not have been taxed to
pay Dr. Wolin's professional fee if he had testified live at trial, we
find no justification in Rule 212 for the award of his fee for the
evidence deposition, the taking and use of which is permitted as a
matter of convenience.
	Because the issue in this case may be resolved by construction
of the applicable statutes and rules, we have not considered the
various public policy arguments made by the parties in favor of or
in opposition to the ability of a prevailing party to recover these
costs. We suggest that such concerns be addressed to the
legislature.

CONCLUSION
	We, therefore, hold that a trial court is neither required by
section 5-108 nor permitted by other statute or rule to tax as costs
to the losing party the professional fee charged by a nonparty
treating physician for attending an evidence deposition. We
reverse that part of the appellate court's judgment affirming the
trial court's taxing as costs the professional fee of Dr. Wolin and
that part of the trial court's judgment awarding these costs.
	In addition, because the fees of the videographer and court
reporter are not taxable as costs under Rule 208(d) unless the
deposition was necessarily used at trial, that portion of the
appellate court's judgment affirming the taxing of these costs and
that portion of the trial court's judgment taxing these costs are also
reversed. This cause is remanded to the circuit court for
reconsideration of the taxing of these fees as costs in light of this
opinion.
Appellate court judgment
reversed in part;
circuit court judgment
reversed in part;
cause remanded.
	I cannot agree with the majority's refusal to permit plaintiff
to recover as costs the professional fees charged by Dr. Wolin, nor
do I see the need to remand the cause for further consideration as
to whether Wolin's deposition was necessarily used at trial.
	Whether a trial court may grant a prevailing plaintiff's motion
to tax as costs the professional fees charged by the plaintiff's
treating physician for testifying at an evidence deposition is not a
question of first impression. It has been considered on numerous
occasions by our appellate court. Although that court has not
spoken with a single voice on the matter, the various districts have
recognized, as the Third District recognized in the case before us
today, that such fees may be recovered by plaintiff where the
plaintiff can show that the evidence deposition was "necessarily
used at trial." See Irwin v. McMillan, 322 Ill. App. 3d 861, 865-67
(2d Dist. 2001); Boehm v. Ramey, 329 Ill. App. 3d 357, 366-67
(4th Dist. 2002); Woolverton v. McCracken, 321 Ill. App. 3d 440
(5th Dist. 2001); Perkins v. Harris, 308 Ill. App. 3d 1076 (5th
Dist. 1999); see also Physicians Insurance Exchange v. Jennings,
316 Ill. App. 3d 443, 464 (1st Dist. 2000) (distinguishing
circumstances in that case from Fifth District's opinion in Perkins
v. Harris).
	With the exception of a badly splintered disposition by the
Fourth District in Myers v. Bash, 334 Ill. App. 3d 369 (2002), no
court of review in Illinois has suggested that the professional fees
charged by a treating physician to testify at an evidence deposition
can never be taxed as costs against a losing defendant. To the
extent that there is any disagreement among the various districts,
that disagreement concerns when and under what circumstances
an evidence deposition can be regarded as having been
"necessarily used at trial." The Second District has taken the view
that the standard is only met where the plaintiff shows that the
witness who was deposed has subsequently died or disappeared.
See Irwin v. McMillan, 322 Ill. App. 3d at 866. The Third District
in this case and the Fifth District in Perkins v. Harris, 308 Ill.
App. 3d 1076, have opined, however, that a trial court does not
abuse its discretion when it taxes as costs the professional fees
charged by a treating physician to testify at an evidence deposition
where the physician is unavailable to appear at trial due to his
demanding work schedule.
	In my view, the position taken by the Third and Fifth Districts
is a sound one. Contrary to the majority's view, the case before us
does not present a situation where the physician was deposed
solely for his own convenience or the convenience of the parties.
Considering the distance between the physician's practice in
Chicago and the place of trial in Will County as well as the
burdens of the doctor's workload, the circuit court could certainly
have concluded that plaintiff would not have been able to obtain
the doctor's testimony voluntarily absent the evidence deposition.
Because the doctor was plaintiff's treating physician and the only
person who could testify regarding plaintiff's injuries and
treatment, there can be no serious question that his testimony was
indispensable at trial.
	For the foregoing reasons, I would hold that the circuit court
did not err when it included in the costs taxed against defendant
the professional fees charged by plaintiff's treating physician to
appear at the evidence deposition. Consistent with that view, I
would further hold that there is no need to set aside the award of
fees for the videographer and court reporter who served at that
deposition pending remand to determine whether the doctor's
evidentiary deposition was necessarily used at trial. The judgment
of the appellate court should be affirmed outright without further
delay. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.
	JUSTICE KILBRIDE joins in this partial concurrence and
partial dissent.
	 
	 
	 
1.      1We note also that our subsequent revision of Rule 219, which deals
with the "Consequences of Refusal to Comply with Rules or Order
Relating to Discovery or Pretrial Conferences," permits a trial court to
assess costs and expenses under the circumstances alleged to have
existed in Galowich. 166 Ill. 2d R. 219(e). Rule 219(e), which is clearly
authorized by section 1-105 of the Code as a means of enforcing its
provisions, gives the trial court the discretion not only to assess "costs,"
but to "require the party voluntarily dismissing a claim to pay an
opposing party or parties reasonable expenses." 166 Ill. 2d R. 219(e).
"[R]easonable expenses," is a much broader term than the term "costs"
as it is used in section 5-108 and Rule 208. 166 Ill. 2d R. 219(e),
Committee Comments. Expenses that are awarded pursuant to Rule
219(e) are in the nature of sanctions imposed on a party for its abuse of
the ability to take a voluntary dismissal without prejudice (see 735 ILCS
5/2-1009 (West 2000)).