1 "Erick K irch, M.D." is ac

tuall y Ev erett Ki rch, M.D. No. 2-- 07--0525 Fil ed: 12-2-08 IN THE APP ELL ATE C OURT

OF IL LINO IS SECOND DI STRICT JANET JACKSON, ) App ea l fro m t he C irc uit Co ur t o f ) La ke Co un t y. Pl ai n ti f f -A pp el l an t, )

) v. ) No. 06-- L--958 ) VICT ORY MEMO RIAL HOSP ITAL, ) CYNTHIA W

AIT, and ERICK K

IRCH, ) Ho no r ab le

) Da vidM. Ha ll, Defendan ts-Appellees. ) Judge, Presi din g. JU STI CEJO RGEN SEN

de l i v ered th e op i n i on of th e c our t: Pla int iff, Jane t Jac kso n, a ppe als t he t rial co ur t 's dismissal of her medical malpra ct ice co mplaint agains t def endan ts, Victory

Mem orial Hospital (VMH), Cyn

thia W ai t, M.D., and Eri ck Ki

rch, M.D. 1 For the followi

ng reasons, we rev

erse and rem

and. I. BACKG

ROUND On February 7, 2005, plai

ntif f f il ed a pro se com

pl ai nt a gai ns t de f en da nts , as serti

ng cl ai m s of me dic al mal pr acti ce . V MH

mov ed to di sm i ss the com pl ai nt, un der s ec ti ons

2-- 615 an d 2- -61 9 of

t he Code of C i

vi l Procedu re (Code) (735 ILCS 5/2--615, 2--619 (West 2004)). VMH all eged that: (1) t he com pl ai nt s hou l d b e di sm i ss ed un der s ec ti on

2--615 because i

t faile d to state a ca

us e of ac ti on f or whi ch reli ef coul d be granted; a

nd (2) the co mpl

ai nt should be di sm

is sed under se ction 2--619No. 2-- 07--0525

-2-

because plaint iff

failed t o s ubmit t he affidavit a nd physician's re po rt re quir ed by se ct ion 2
-- 622 of t he Code (735 ILCS 5/2--622 (West 2004)). Wait and K irch move d to dis

mi ss the com

pla in t under section 2--619 of the Code, based on p laintiff's fail

ur e t o c omp ly with Su pr eme Co ur t Rule 1 03( b) (177 Ill . 2d

R. 1 03( b) ) an d b as ed on plai ntif f 's f ail ureto subm

i t the af f i dav i t and phy sician's report requi red b y section 2--622 . On Ju ne 15 , 2 005 , t he trial court granted VMH's motion t o dismi ss un der s ec ti on 2 --6 15 of the C ode, gran

ted pl ai ntif f l eav e to replead, a

nd s et a Ju

l y 6, 2005 , status d

ate. On Jul y 6, 2005 , plai

ntif f adv i sed the tri al courtthat she had retai

ned an atto rney, and the trial court continue d the ma

tt er for a status heari

ng on A ugust 3, 2005. On August 17, 2 00 5, pl ain t iff a dv ise d t he t r ial c o ur t t ha t sh e h ad no t r et ain ed an at t o rne y. Th e t ria l co ur t o rd er ed t hat pla int iff mus t r ep lea d w it hin 2 8 d ays , an d it set a September 21, 2005, status date. On Septembe

r 21, 2005, plai

ntif f adv is ed the trial

court that she

had retai ne d an attorney. The court ordered t hat an attorney m ust appear and f

il e an appearan

ce on October 4, 2005. On Octo ber 4, 2005, the tr ial cour t o rdered as follows: "T his ma tt er has b een conti

nued [sev eral] ti me s f or stat us onplaint iff

's o bt aining re pr ese nt at ion. Pla int iff is still wi thou t rep resentat ion. Should she wish to r eplead agai nst [VMH] sh

e m ust d o so b y

not ice an

d motion withi

n the next 28 days Nov 1, 2005 [.]" (Em phasi s i n ori gi na l .) The trial court set a Novemb er 22, 2005, stat us date. On No vembe r 22, 2005, the trial court granted plai

ntif f 28 day s to have counsel

fi le an appearance, an

d it set a Decem

ber 20, 2005, status dat e.No. 2-- 07--0525

-3-

On De cem b er 20 , 20 05 , pl

ai n ti f f mov ed to volun taril y di sm is s the compl

ai nt under section 2-- 1009 of the Code, which provides that "[t] he pl ai ntif f m ay , at any ti

me bef ore t rial or hearing begi

ns, *** di sm i ss hi s or h er acti on or a n y pa rt th ereof as to an y de f en da n t, without prejudi

ce, by order fil ed in the c aus e." 735 IL CS 5/2 --1009 (a) (W est 2004). The t rial co ur t gr ant ed p laintiff's mot ion, ru ling as foll ows: "Plaint iff

's Mo t ion t o V olu nt ari l

y Non -Su i t i s g ra n ted wi th costs to b e p ai

d to De f en da n ts upon refi

li ng, and wh

ereupon Drs. Ki

rch and Wai te's [ sic ] Mo t ions to Dis

m i ss a re to be rei nstated upon

ref i l i ng." On Decem

ber 20, 2006, one year

after her v

oluntary dis mi ssal , plai ntif f, wi th the assi stance of coun sel, ref

i l ed h er com plai nt ag ai nst def endan ts. Plai ntif f' s newl y f il ed co mplaint allege d t hat she wa s trea ted b y de f en da n ts in 2003 for Crohn' s di sease an d that Wai

t and Ki rch, as agents, servants, an d/or em pl oyee s of VM H, negl

ige ntly prescrib ed certain

me dic ations wh

il e she was a patien

t at VMH. Plai

ntif f al le ged that t he med

i ca ti on s c au se d adver se

med i ca l re acti on s a

n d s ev ere, perm an en t, and debi li tating i nj uries . In addi

tion, pl ai ntif f al leged t hat , a s a d irect and p ro ximate r esu lt o f the negl ige nce, she e xp ended a

nd bec ame liable for larg e su ms of mo ney for medical ca re . P laintiff's atto rney attachedt o t he co mplaintan affidavit pur sua nt t o s ect ion 2
-- 622 (a )( 2) of t he Co de. In t he af f i da v i t, pla in tif f' s atto rney

asserted that he was un ab le t o o bt ain the me dic al consul tation required b y se ct io n 2- -6 22( a) (1 ), beca use t he st at ut e o f li mitat ions w ou ld hinder t he ac t ion ( t he limi t at ions period ex pi re d th e day th e c om pl ai n t wa s ref i l ed ) a n d th at, th us , he n ee de d a 90 -d ay ex tensi on to obtai n the requ

i red af f i dav i t and report. On Ja nu ar y 23 , 20 07 , VM H mo ve d t o dis miss t he ne wly fi le d compl ai nt under section 2--619 on t he grounds that it was ba rr ed by res j udi ca ta . Accordin

g to VMH, the newl

y f il ed compl ai nt wasNo. 2-- 07--0525

-4-

barred by the trial cou rt' s J un e 1 5, 2 00 5, d

i sm i ss al of pl ai n ti f f ' s i n i ti al com pl ai n t f or f ai l ur e to state a cla im an d b y pl ain t iff's su bs eq ue nt vo lunt ar y di smis sa l o f t he init ial c o mp lain t . On t ha t sa me d ay, Ki rch move d to dis

mi ss based on plai

ntif f' s alle g ed f ai lureto co mply with sec t ion 2
-- 622 . I n t he alte rna t ive, Kirc h re que st ed t hat his "o riginal mot ion t o d ismiss [ t he in itial compl ai nt] be rei nstated and[] ruled upon by the trial cour t. " Wai

t was gr anted leave to join K irch' s motion to dism

iss. The trial court gav

e pl ai ntif f unti l Feb ruary 12, 200 7, t o r esp ond t o V MH's mo t ion and until February 7, 200 7, t o r esp ond t o Kir ch and Wait's mot ion. On Ma rc h 12 , 2 00 7, pla int iff mov ed to fil e her re spo nse t o V MH's mo t ion in stanter , a nd she r eq ue st ed an ex t en sio n o f t ime to obtai n c ertai n m edi cal records ne eded to prepare

her section

2-- 622(a )(1) af f i dav i t. On March

20, 2007, the trial

court granted both motions to dis mi ss. Wi th respect to Ki

rch and Wait, t he t rial co ur t agr eed t hat pl ai n ti f f f ai l ed to f i l e " ei th er a ph y si ci an ' s rep ort pur suan

t to Sec ti on 2- -6 22 o f the Co de or an appropri ate af f i dav i t pursua nt to Section 2--6 22 of

the C ode." Relying on Cargi ll

v. Czel atdko , 353 Ill. App . 3 d 65 4 ( 200 4) , t he co ur t fou nd t hat plaint iff 's at t or ney's affid av it regardin

g the phy si ci an' s report was in

suf fi ci ent becaus e i

t faile d t o d eclar e, as r equ ired by se cti on 2--622 (a)(2), th

at plai ntif f had not previ

ousl y vol unta ri ly di smissed a n act ion bas ed o n t he sam e or sub stan

tia l l y the s am e ac ts, om

i ssi ons, or occ

urren ces . W i th respect to VMH, the court foun d that pl ain t iff's cla ims w er e b ar r ed by re s j udi ca ta because : (1 ) t he re f

i l ed acti on i n v ol v ed th e s am e a l l eg ati on s a n d p ar ti es as th e i n i ti al com pl ai n t; (2) on June 15, 2005, the c ourt gr an ted VMH' s m

oti on to dism i ss th e i n i ti al com pl ai n t; (3 ) d es pi te num erous extensi

ons, plai ntif f f ai le d to replea d and, i nstead, in Decem ber 2005, vol

untaril y di sm is sedNo. 2-- 07--0525

-5-

her ini tial co mplai

nt; (4) t he Ju ne 15 , 2 005 , o rd er beca me final and app ealable u po n plaint iff 's vol unta ry di sm i ssa l ; a nd ( 5) pl ai ntif f did not ap

peal that order. The cour t denied plai

ntif f' s motion to reconsider. Plain tiff appeals both order s. II. AN AL YSIS A. Kir ch an d W ait We fi rst address whether the trial cour t pr o pe r ly g ranted Ki rch and W

ai t's section 2--619 m oti on to d i sm i ss base d on pl ai nti f f 's al l eg ed f ai l ure to com pl y wi th s ec ti on 2--622. We review de novo a di sm

is sal under section 2--619 of the Code. DeLuna v . Burciaga , 223 Il l . 2d 49, 5 9 (200 6). Under se cti on 2--622(a)(1) o f the C ode, when a pl ai ntif f f il es a m ed i ca l mal pr acti ce com pl ai n t, t he plaint iff

's at t or ney (o r t he plaint iff , if pr oc eed ing pro se ) must at t ach t o t he co mpla int an affid av it sta ti ng tha t he orshe h as consul ted with a "h

eal th professi

onal " and that the hea

lth prof essi onal has determi ned i n a wri tt en report (which

must also be attached t o t he complain t) t hat "there is a r ea so na ble an

d m eri to rious cause f

or t he f il in g of such action." 735 ILCS 5/ 2--622 (a)(1 ) (West 2006) . Bef

ore 1995, section 2--622(a)(2) pr ovide d that a medi

cal ma lpractice pl ai

ntif f was entitled t o a 9 0- da y ext en sio n t o file t he affid av it and m edi cal reportr eq uir ed un de rse ct io n 2
- - 62 2( a) ( 1) if he orshe f il ed an af fi davi t declari ng "[t]hat the aff

ia nt was unable

to obtain a

consul tation required by paragrap h 1 becausea s tatute of l i m i tations woul d i m pai r th e acti on a nd the consul tati on co uld not be obtai ne d be f ore the expiration of the stat ute o f l im itations." 735 ILCS 5/ 2--622 (a)(2 ) (West 1994) . The Ci

vi l Ju sti ceRe f orm A men dm en ts of 1995 (Pub. Act 89--7, eff . March 9, 1995) amen

ded se cti on 2- -6 22 i n two res pe cts . Rel

ev an t to thi s a ppe al , se cti

on 2--622(a)(2) was amen

ded to add an o t he rr eq uir eme nt t o t he affid av it , sp ec ifica lly, a de cla r at io n t ha t t he "p laint iff ha s no t pr ev io us lyNo. 2-- 07--0525

-6-

vo lun t ar ily

dis miss ed an ac t io n b as ed on th e s am e or s ub sta nti al l y the sa me acts , om

i ss i ons , or occurre nc es." Pub. Act 89--7, eff . March 9, 1995 ( am

endi ng 7 35 IL CS 5/2 --622(a

)(2)(W est 199 4)). On Decem ber 18, 1997, ou r su pr eme co ur t in Best v. Tay lor Mach in e Works , 179 Ill . 2d 367, 467 (1 997 ), held P ublic Act 89- -7 void in its ent iret y. Altho ugh t he am en dm en ts made to se cti on 2-- 622 we r e n o t he ld

su bs tan ti ve l y un consti tutiona l , th ey were n everth el es s struck dow

n on se v erab i l i ty pr inciples. Wit h t he de cision in Best , the A ct reverted to the pre-199 5 ve rsi on. In Febr uar y 1998 , t he General Asse mbly passed Pub li

c Act 90--579, whi ch am

ended se cti on 2--622 by addi n g n ap ra pa th s to it s c o ve r ag e. Se e P ub . Ac t 90
- - 57 9, eff. Ma y 1, 19 98 . Whe n it did so, it d id no t add napr apa t hs t o t he pr e- 199 5 ver sion; rather, it added naprapaths to the versi on struck downin Best (the versi

on that required under se ction 2--622(a)(2) a declaration i n the af fi davi t t hat t he "p l ai nti f f has n ot previ ous l y vol un tari l y di sm i ss ed an ac ti on base d o n t he sa me or subs t ant ially t he sa me acts, omis si ons, or o ccurrences" ). Therefore, under the 1998 versi on of secti on 2--622, a pla int iff was preclude d from

obtaini ng a 90-day

extensi on to fi le the required

affid av it an d r ep o r t if t he pla int iff ha d p r ev io us ly volu nt ar ily

dismissed t he same o r su bst ant ially t he sa me cau se o f act ion. See 7 35 IL CS 5/2 --622(a )(2) (W est 199 8). Af ter pla in tif f f il ed her i ni tial compl ai nt (and pri or t o t he date on whi ch sh e fi le d her new com plai nt), t he le g i slature passe d Pub l i c Act 94--67 7 (Pub . Act 94--677 , ef f . Au gust 25 , 2005) , whi ch ag ain am en de d s ec ti on 2 --6 22 of

the Code. W he n p l ai nti f f ref i l ed he r com pl ai nt on Decem ber 20, 2006 , section 2-- 622 pro vided, in relevant part , as foll ows: "2--622. Heali

ng art mal practice. (a) In any action, whethe

r in to rt, co ntract or o therwis e, in whi ch the pl ai ntif f s eeks dam ages f or i njuri esordea t h by

reason of m

edi cal , hospital , or o ther heal in g art mal practice,No. 2-- 07--0525

-7-

t he pla int iff's at t o rne y o rt he pla int iff, if t he pla int iff is p r o ce ed ing pr o se , sha ll file an af f i da v i t, attached to the origi

nal and al l c opies of

the compl

ai nt, declari ng one of the f

oll owing: 1. That the aff

ia n t h as c ons ult ed a nd r eviewe d t he fact s o f the cas e wit h a h ea l th pr o fes sio na l * ** ; th at t he r eviewing he alth p ro fessio nal has d et er mined in a written report , after a rev i ew of the m edi cal record and ot her relevan t material in volved i n the part icul

ar act ion that t here is a reasonabl e and meri

to rious cause f

or th e fili ng of su ch ac t ion; and t hat t he affiant has c onc luded on t he bas is of t he re viewing h ea

l th professi onal 's rev ie w and consul

tation that t her e is a r eas ona ble and me ritorious cau se fo r filing

of su ch ac t io n. ** * A co py o f t he wr it t en r ep o rt , cle ar ly ident ify ingth e p l ai

n ti f f an d th e r eas ons for t he r eviewing he alth p ro fessio nal's de term i na ti on tha t a re as ona

bl e a nd meri tor io usca

us e f or th e f i l i ng of the ac ti on exi sts, in cl udin g the reviewi

ng he al th care professi

onal 's n am e, addres s, curre nt li

cense num ber, and state of l

ic ensure, m

ust be attached to t he af

fi davi t. *** 2. Tha t t he af

f i an t wa s u na bl e to obtai n a consul tati on required b

y pa ragraph 1 be ca us e a st at ut e o f limit at io ns w o uld i m pa i r th e acti

on a nd the consul tation req ui red coul d n ot be obta i ne d b ef ore th e e xp i rati on of the statute of l

i m i tations. If an aff ida vi t is executed pursuant to this paragraph, the af

fi davi t and written

r eport required by par agr aph 1 shall be fil

ed w ithin 90 days a fte r t he fili ng of th e c om pl ai n t. No ad dit io na l 90
- da y ext en sio ns p ur su an t t o t his paragraph sh all b e granted, except where there has been

a w i thd rawal of t he plaint iff

's co unse l. The defend ant shall be excused f rom ans werin g or o therwis e pl eadi

ng unti l 30 da y s af ter b ei n g s er v ed wi th an af fi davi t and a report required b

y pa ragraph 1.No. 2-- 07--0525

-8- * * * (g) The f ai l ur e of th e p la int iff t o file a n a ffida vit an d r ep o rt in c o mplia nc e w it h t his Section sh

all b e grounds for di sm

is sal under Section 2--619. (h) Thi s Section does n

ot appl y to or af f ec t a n y acti on s p en

di n g a t th e ti me of i ts eff ective date, but applies to cases fi le d on or after its ef

fecti ve date.
*** ( j) The ch an

ge s to th i s S ecti on

made b y th isam endat ory Act of the 94th Gen eral A ss em bl y appl y to ca us esof ac ti on a ccrui ng on or aft er its e ffect ivedate." 735 IL CS 5/2
-- 622 (W est 200 6). The co ur t ru led t hat plaint iff 's at t or ney's affidavit w as insufficient under section 2--622(a)(2) because t he affid av it faile d t o de cla r e t ha t pla int iff ha d n o t pr ev io us ly vo lun t ar ily dis mi ssed an ac ti on based on t he sa me or subs t ant ially t he sa me fact s and , t hus, it di sm is sed plai ntif f' s newl y f il ed com plai nt. We hold that the trial

court 's dism

is sal of the compl

ai nt was erroneo us because , u nder t he ap plic ab le versi

on of secti on 2--622 of the Code, such a dec la ration wasnot required. Plai ntif f f il ed her ne w c o mp lain t af

t er t he ef fe ct ive da t e o f P ub lic A ct 94
- - 67 7, an d, t hu s, it s p r o vis io ns ap pl y. 735 ILCS 5/2--6 22(h

) (We st 2006 ); see Cal

am ari v. Dr ammis , 2 86 I ll. App. 3d 4 20, 426 (1 997 ) ( app lyi ng am ended ve rs i on of sec t ion 2
-- 622 , w her e t he plaint iff re fil ed he r c omp laint aft er t he effect iveda te of the am endm ent). Eff ective August 25, 2005, section 2--622(a)(2) no longer contai ned th e re quir ement t hat a p laint iff proc ee di ng the reu nd er m us t de cl are "[t] ha t the pl ai nti f f has n ot pr ev io us ly vo lun t ar ily

dis mi ssed an action b ased upon the s ame or su bs tan ti al l y the sa me acts , om

i ss i ons , or occur rences" (735 ILCS 5/2--622(a)(2) (Wes t 200 4)) . There f ore, un der th e p l ai

n l an gua geof se cti onNo. 2-- 07--0525

-9-

2--622 (a)(2), co nt ra ry t o t he t rial co ur t 's hold ing, p laintiff was ent itled t o t he 90
- da y ext en sio n t o file t he affid av it an

d m edi cal rep ort re qui

red un der s ec ti on

2--622(a)(1), irrespec

tive of whether sh

e had pr ev io us ly

voluntaril

y dismi ssed her cause of action. 735 ILCS 5/2--6 22(a)( 1), (a)(2 ) (We st 2006 ). We al so note t hat, even if the 1998 versi

on of secti on 2--622 appli ed, plai ntif f was never t heless e nt itled t o t he 90 -d ay ext ensio n. As no t ed, t he co ur t 's ru ling t hat plaint iff

's at t or ney's affi da vit was i

nsuf fi ci ent under section 2--622(a)(2) for faili ng to declare that pl ai

ntif f h ad n o t pr ev io us ly

volun taril y di sm is sed an ac

tion bas ed o n t he sa me or substantial ly the sam e fac ts was based on Ca r gill , 35 3 I l l . A

pp . 3d 65 4, a n d i ts i nterpretati on of

the 1 998 v

ersi on of section 2--622 (a)(2). In Ca r gill , the F ourth District he l d tha t, "i n l ookin g at the plai n l anguag e of

[section 2--622 (a)(2)], if a p h y si ci an ' s rep ort is n

ot att ach ed

to the compl

ai nt, the plai

ntif f m ust att ach an affidavit indicat ing that he [ o rshe ] 'ha s no t pr ev io us ly vo lun t ar ily dis mis se d an a cti onbase d up on th e s am e or su bst an t ially

the sam e acts' " to be enti

tled to a 90-day

ex tens i on. Ca r gill , 353 Ill . App. 3d at 661, quo t ing735 ILCS 5 /2--6 22(a)( 2) (West 200 2). Re cen tly , howeve r, the Il l i noi s Suprem

e Court reversed Ca r gill in O' Ca se k v . Ch ildr en 's H o me & AidSo cie t y o f I llino is , 229 Il l . 2d 421 (2008 ). The is sue in O'Cas ek

was whethe

rthe l eg i sl atu re i nte nd ed , wh en i t pa ss ed the 199 8 vers i on of se ct io n 2
- - 62 2, t o r ee na ct t he ve r sio n s t ruc k d o wn by Best (which i ncl uded the l anguage pr eclud ing

a pl ai ntif f f rom obtain

in g a90- da y ex ten si on under section 2--622(a)(2) if the pl ai ntif f h ad pr ev io us ly

voluntaril

y dismi ssed an action based on the same or subst an t iall y the s am e f acts). Fo llowing an

exam i na ti on of the l eg i sl ati ve hi story of t he 19 98 ve rsio n of se ct ion 2
-- 622 , t he su pr eme courtconcl

uded that the legislature did not in tend to r eenact

the versi on struck down in Best and that the in cl usi on in section 2--622(a)(2) of the language co nc er ning pr ev io us vo lun t ar y dis miss als was "legislat iveoversight." O'Cas ek , 229 Il l . 2d at 44 7. The

courthe ld

tha t, con trar y to Ca r gill 's h

oldi ng,No. 2-- 07--0525

-10-

under the 1998 versi

on of secti on 2--622, a plai ntif f was not precluded f

rom obtain

in g a 90-day ex ten si on if the pla in tif f h ad previ ously volun tar ily di sm i ss ed an ac ti on b as ed

on th e s am e or su bst an t ially t he sa me f

acts. O'Cas ek , 229 Ill . 2dat 450 . T her efo re , ba sed on O'Cas ek , e ven if the 1998 version of se ct ion 2-- 622appl i ed he re, pl ai nti f f 's attorn ey 's af f i da vi t wa s n ot i ns uf f i ci en t f or faili ng to decl aret ha t pla int iff ha d n o t pr ev io us ly vo lun t ar ily dis miss ed an ac t io n ba se d u po n t he sa me or subst antial

ly the same f

acts. Ki rch an d W ait maint ain in t he alt er na t ive t ha t , ev en if we f i n d th at p l ai n ti f f wa s e n ti tl ed to t he 90- day ext ensio n, w e sho uld affirm t he t rial co ur t 's dismissal, ba sed on p laintiff'sfailure t o file t he required aff idav it and m edical repo rt w ithi

n those 90 days. Wit ho ut an y cit at io n t o au t ho r it y, Ki rch and Wa it maint ain that "no further extensions can b e granted" and t hat, t hus, pla int iff's failu r e t o file the aff ida vi t and report withi

n the 90-day

period i s di spositi

ve. We dis agree. Al thought he 20 05 ve rsio n of se ct ion 2
-- 622 (a )( 2) pr ovid es t hat "[n] o ad di ti on al 90-day ext ensio ns pursuan

t to t his pa

ragra ph s ha l l be gran ted, ex cept wh erethe re h asbe en a w i thd rawal of t he pla in tif f' s counsel " (735 I LC S 5 /2
- - 62 2( a) ( 2) ( We st 20 06 ) ) , it al so provides that "[t]he chan ges to this Section m

ade by this am endatory Ac

t of the 94th Gene ral A ss em bl y appl y to ca us esof ac ti on acc ru ingo n o raft er it s e ffec t ive da t e" ( 73 5 I LC S 5 /2
- - 62 2( j) (Wes t 200 6)) . The p rohi bi ti on agains t any "ad dit ional 90 -d ay ext ensio ns" wa s ad ded when t he legislat ur e pa ssed Pu blic Act 9 4- -6 77 ( Pu b. Act 94
-- 67 7, eff. August 25, 2005); t herefore, it do es not app ly to plai ntif f' s cause of action, wh

ic h accrued i n 20 03. See

735 IL CS 5/2 --622(j ) (We st 2006 ). Because the express pr

ohibit ion ag ai

n st " addi ti on al 90 -d ay ex tensi on s" doe s n

ot ap pl y to pla int iff, th e tr

i al cou rt did have discretion to extend the period for fi li ng the af fi davi t and me dic al report bey

ond the 90 days speci

fi ed by section 2--622(a)(2). See Woo dar d v. Krans , 234 Ill . App.No. 2-- 07--0525

-11-

3d 6 90 ( 199 2) . I n Woodard, the defen dants argued "that, by

providi ng a specifi c 90-day pe r io d in se ct io n 2
- - 62 2( a) ( 2) , t he leg isla t ur e in t en de d t ha t a me di ca l mal pr ac t ice pl ain t iff ha ve o nly 9 0 d ays after th e f i l i n g of th e c om pl ai n t to pr ovid e t he required docu men tat ion." Woodard, 234 Ill . App. 3d at 701. Th

i s c our t re j ected th at a rgum en t, st at ing: "T his arg ument is pat ent ly witho ut merit . T he appella te court has al

ready rec ogniz ed

tha t a tri al cou rt h asthe di screti on to a l l ow, f or good cause, fi li ngst ha t ar e n o t t imely e ve n u nd er t he de ad line p r o vid ed in section 2--622 (a)(2 )." Woodard, 234 I ll. App. 3d at 701, citi

ng Garlan d v. Kauten , 2 09 Ill . Ap

p. 3d 30 , 35-36(1991 ), Wasielews ki v. Gil li gan , 189 Ill . App. 3d 945, 950-51 (1989), and Hauk v. Day, 16 7 I ll. App. 3d 7 58 ( 198 8) . We further not ed t hat "[s ]u ch a c ons t ru ct ion is co nsist ent not only with the pri

nci ple that section 2--622 is t o be construed li

beral ly [citation], but al so with the tria l c ourt 's power under

both S uprem

e Court Ru le 183 (13 4 Il

l . 2d R. 1 83)an

d s ec ti on 2-- 100 7 of

the C ode of

Ci vi l Procedu re [(73 5 ILC S 5/2-- 1007 (West 2 006))] to grant co ntinuan ces for goo d cause." Woodard, 234 Ill . App. 3d at 701. Under the stat ute in ef

fect at t he tim

e, plai ntif f was en titled to 90 days f

r o m t he da t e she refi le d he r cl ai m . T he di sm i ss al on Marc h 2 0, 2 007 , occ

urred on th e n i ne ti eth da y . How ever, on March 12, 200 7, pl

ai ntif f had re que st ed a n ex

tens i on of tim e to loc ate m

edi cal records that we re needed t o p re par e t he affidavit and med ical rep or t re quir ed by se ct ion 2
-- 622 (a )( 1) . T her e is no evi dence that, at the March 20, 2007, heari ng, the trial

court considered pla

in tif f' s request for an addi tional extensi on. Instead of conductin

g a heari ng to deter mi

ne wh ether pla in tif f h ad establ is hed good ca us e fo ran o t he rex t en sio n, t he t r ial c o ur t er r o ne o us ly re lied o n t he b elief t hat pla int iff wa s n ot en ti tl ed to any extensi on bey ond the fi li ng date of Decem

ber 20, 2006.No. 2-- 07--0525

-12-

Accordin gly , we reman

d the cause f

or t he trial

court to consider whether plai ntif f can me et her bu rde n of good c au se

sh own f or an addi ti ona l ex ten si on to co m pl y wi th th e 2 005 ve rs i on of se cti on 2- -6 22 (a)(1 ), a

n d, i f pl ai n ti f f ca n n ot, th e tr i al cou rt m ay dism i ss h er com pl ai n t. B. Whe t he rP lain t iff's Cla ims A ga ins t VM H W er e B ar r ed by Re s J udi ca ta Pla int iff next argues t hat the t rial

cour t err ed in

granting VMH 's se ction 2- -6 19 m oti on to dismiss the newly fil

ed c omp laint, base d o n re s j udi ca ta . We revi

ew the i ssue de novo . DeL una v. Burci aga , 223 Il

l . 2d 49, 5 9 (200 6).

" 'T he d o ct rine o f re s j udi ca ta prov i de s th

at a fi nal judgm ent on the m

erits rende

redby a court of competent j urisdi

ction ba rs any subse quent actions b etween t he same p ar t ies o r t heir p rivies o n t he sa me caus e of action.' " Hudson v. Ci ty of Ch ic ago , 228 Ill . 2d 462, 467 (2008), quot in g Rein v. Da vi d A . Noy es& C o. , 172 Il

l . 2d 325 , 334 (1 996). "Th ree req ui rem en ts m us t be sa ti sf i ed f or res j udi ca ta to appl y : (1) a f i na l j udgm en t on the m

eri ts has b een

rendered by a court of co mpet ent jurisd ictio n; (2) an ident ity o f caus e o f act ion exist s; and (3) the parties or their pri vies are identic al in both act ions." Hu ds on , 228 Ill . 2d at 467. Pla int iff doe s n ot dis pu t e t hat t he s ec o nd a nd t hird ele ment s o f res judi cata are satisf

ie d here. Rather, pl ai n ti f f con ten dsth at re s j udi ca

ta does not ap ply

because t he Ju ne 15 , 2 005 , o rd er gr ant ing VMH 's motion to dism

is s the i ni tial compl ai nt for fai lure to state a cl ai

m a nd the Decem

ber 20, 2005, order gra nti ng pl ai nti f f 's moti on for a vol untary dism

is sal are "unen forceabl e orders" because they

"do not co nt ain ne ce ss ar y Su pr eme Co ur t Ru le 30 4( a) [ ( 21 0 I ll. 2d R . 3 04( a) )] langua ge. " Acc or ding to pla int iff, t he lac k o f Ru le 304(a) lan guage renders the orders nonf in al . In response, VMH agrees that the June 15, 2005, order does not contain the "enf orceabl e and ap pe ala ble " la ng ua ge o f Ru le 304(a ); how ever , r elying

on Dubi na v . Mesi

row Realty

Devel opmen t, Inc. , 178 Ill . 2d496 (1 997),No. 2-- 07--0525

-13-

VMH maintains t hat t he o rd er beca me fina lwh en th e tr i al cou rt gra n ted pl ai n ti f f ' s m oti on to v ol un tar i l y dism i ss th e c om pl ai n t. If t he dis mi ssal wasnot a f

i na l adj udication on th

e m eri ts, re s j udi ca

ta does not apply . "A f

in al order is one th at ' disp ose s of th e ri gh ts o f th e p ar ti es ei th er wi th res pe ct to the enti

re c ontr ove rs y or so me defi ni te and separat e por tion thereo f.' " I n r e E st at e o f Yu cis , 38 2 I ll . App . 3d 1062, 1069 (2008 ), quot in

g Ar ac hnid , I nc . v. Be all , 210 Il l . Ap p. 3d 10 96, 110 3 (199 1). An or der st riking or dismissing

a c o mpla int is no t fina l "u nle ss it s la ng ua ge ind ica t es t he lit iga t io n is t er minated and t he pla int iff wil l n ot be perm

itted to rep lead." Co le v . Ho o ge nd o o rn, T alb o t , Da vid s, Go df r ey & Mill iga n , 325 Ill. App . 3 d 11 52, 115 3 ( 200 1) . P laintiff is cor re ct t hat t he Jun e 15, 2 005, order dismissing t he co mplaintwas not f i na l , but, c ontr

ary to plai nti f f 's arg um en t, i t i s n ot the ab senc e of Ru le 30 4( a) lan gu ag e t ha t mak es t he o r de rno nfina l. Rul e 304(a) lan guage does not make an

order fina l; it makes ap pe ala ble a fi nal order t hat adj udic ates fewer t ha n a ll t he claims o r t he r ight s and li abi li tiesof f ewer than al

l the pa rties i n an action. See 210 Ill. 2d R. 304( a); In re Ado ption of Gin ne ll , 31 6 I ll. App. 3d

78 9, 79 3 ( 20 00 ). Ra t her , t he o rd er wa s no t final be ca us e it gr ant ed pla int iff leave to ame

nd. See Smi

th v. Central

Ill i noi s Re gional

Ai rport , 2 07 I ll. 2d 5 78, 585 (2 003 ) ( "The co ur t 's de ci si

on t o g ra nt leave t o a mend indicat es t hat defend ant s' mot ions w er e no t final dispos itio ns of the ca se, a

nd th us i t can not be cons i dered

a f i na l order"). Ne verthel ess, VMH argues that, even though the order granted plai ntif f l eave to amen

d, plaint iff 's failure t o p lead w ithin t he t ime allowed by the t rial co ur t op er at ed a s an e lect ion t o s t and on t he o riginal plea ding and t hat , w hen t he t rial co ur t gr ant ed p laintiff's mot ion f or a vol unta ry dis mi ssal of the case, t he June 15, 2005, dismissal b ecame f in al. We disa gree. First , t her e is no i nd i ca ti on that plai ntif f el ected to stand on the compl ai nt. Whi le the rec or d in

dic ates that t he trialNo. 2-- 07--0525

-14-

courtgr an

ted se v eral ex tensi on s to pl ai n ti f f to re pl ead a n d th at p l ai n ti f f f ai l ed to do so , t he record also in dic ates that plai

ntif f' s f ailure to do so was like ly a r es ult of her i nab il ity to secure counsel

rather than a des i re to stand on h

er com plai nt. I n add itio n, a ltho ugh the trial court set a deadli

ne b y w hich pla int iff ha d to f ile her am

en ded compl

ai nt, it was wi

thin the trial court 's discretion to extend that deadlin e, even w ell after t he origi nal deadlin e. See Ri chardson v . Economy Fi re & Ca sual

ty Co. , 109 I ll. 2d 41, 46 (1985). Indeed, t he trial co ur t had p re viou sly done so , e xt ending its A ugust 31, 2005, dead l i ne to Novem

ber 1, 200 5. Mo r eo ve r , "[ e] ve n if a pla int iff su bse qu en t ly elect s t o s t and on hi s or her compl ai nt, an order st riking or dismissing a co mplaintis not fi nal until the trial court enters an

order dism i ss i n g th e s ui t" ( Co le , 325 Ill . App. 3d at 1153-54) and does so with prej udic e. See Wick Bu ilding Syst ems, I nc. v. Bunning , 10 7 I ll. App. 3d 61, 62 ( 198 2); Martin v. Marks , 80 Ill . App. 3d 915, 918 (1980). Here, t he t r ial c o ur t ne ve ren t er ed an o r de rdis mi ssing the sui t with prej udic e. To t he contrary, the trial courtgranted plai

ntif f' s m ot ion f or a voluntary

dis mi ssal . A vol

untary dism

is sal is a di sm is sal without prejudi ce. See 735 ILCS 5/2--1009 (West 2006). Whi le i t i s w ell se t t led t hat up o n en t ry o f a vol unta ry dis mi ssal all f in al orders become appeal

abl e (see Hu ds on , 228 Ill . 2d at 468 ; Dubina , 178 I ll. 2d at 503), VMH do es not cite, nor have we f ound, any case hol din g that an order granting a vol unta ry di sm i ss al ren ders f i na l an othe rwise non f i na l orde r. Pr i orto t he vo lunt ar y dismissal, t he t rial co ur t did no t ent er an o rd er t hat " 'disp os e[ d] of t he ri gh ts of th e p ar ti es ei th er wi th re sp ect to t he en t ire co nt r o ve r sy o rso me d efin i te and separat e por tion thereo f' " ( Yu cis , 382 Ill . App. 3d at 1069, quot in

g Ar ac hnid , 210 Ill . App. 3d at 1103). T heref

ore, we h old th at re s j udi ca

ta does not bar plaint if f's ca us e of acti on ag ai n st V MH an d th at th e tr i al cou rt erre d i n gr an ti n g VMH ' s m

oti on to dism iss.No. 2-- 07--0525

-15- III. CONCLUSION For t he fo re go ing re aso ns, t he judg ment o f the circu it co ur t of La ke C ou nt y is rever sed , a nd the cause i s rem

anded. Reversed a

nd rem anded. ZENO FF , P.J., an

d SCH OSTOK

, J., con cur.